Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon: My Lords, further to the noble Lord's previous answer onthe question of winning the battle for hearts and minds, do the Government recognise that this extends far further than the conventional networks of newspapers and television? I give the noble Lords a figure: at the time of the Vietnam War the average citizen had access to information through three, maybe four, outlets, of which two could be regarded as being under government control. Nowadays, the average citizen has access to 24 sources of information, of which only one is the internet. Very few are under government control. It is these viral networks, the internet and other networks, which are the battleground of terrorist networks in this country. Are we sure we are making it ours, too?

Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but is he aware of the consequences of the budget for the 2012 Olympics, which has risen from £3.4 billion in 2005 to £9.3 billion now, and that Arts Council England and the Heritage Lottery Fund have had to contribute almost £400 million? Is he also aware that, although the Department of Culture, Media and Sport has been cobbled together, with culture having little connection with sport, it must be wrong for the arts to lose out to sport as a result of the mishandling of the department?

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness that consistency is very important, but I draw her attention to the fact that10 years ago the Arts Council budget was £173 million; it is now £412 million. An enormous amount of money is being spent on the arts. The Government will do everything that they can to minimise the impact on arts organisations because of this diversion to the Olympic fund, and I am sure that we will be able to discuss many of these issues at greater length in the debate tomorrow.

Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, to answer my noble friend's second question first, the spending review is causing some anxiety in relation to this diversion of moneys to the Olympic Games. Obviously, I cannot say anything about that. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made an extremely positive speech about the arts in Brighton last week. Yesterday, my right honourable friend made a speech in Liverpool, where she announced the preliminary details of the Cultural Olympiad, suggesting that £40 million would be set aside—which she hoped to have doubled—to encourage arts as a parallel to the Olympic Games over the next four years. It has always been the intention that a very powerful arts programme should run alongside the Olympic Games. That should encourage the arts world.

Lord Adonis: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his remarks, to which I will draw the QCA's attention so that it can see what he said. On ancient history, which we regard as a very important A-level, the number studying at AS-level rose from 749 to951 between 2005 and 2006, while the number of candidates for the A-level has also been increasing. I am glad to say that the number entering for Latin and ancient Greek has also been increasing. I would like to think that that had something to do with the appointment of an Adonis as Schools Minister, but I am told that it has rather more to do with successful projects such as the Cambridge classics project, outstandingly successful books such as Robert Harris's Imperium and Tom Holland's Rubicon, and films such as "Gladiator".

Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the study of the roots of our democracy through ancient history is crucial to the understanding of the importance of having a contested election rather than a coronation of the leader of the government?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in another place. The Statement is as follows:
	"Mr Speaker, following the recommendations of the review group chaired by Professor Neil Douglas, an extended round 1 of recruitment to postgraduate medical training is now taking place. As the House knows, every eligible applicant for postgraduate medical training has now been guaranteed at least one interview for their first preference post, regardless of the outcome of the earlier shortlisting process, although many trainees of course will have more than one interview. An additional 15,500 interviews have therefore been arranged as part of round 1, and are now taking place. I am extremely grateful to the consultants who have made themselves available for these additional interviews, and to hospitals for making the time available. "The review group agreed that offers for the current round will be managed locally by individual deaneries on the basis of published MMC guidance. Subject to the outcome of the current judicial review, the first offers for hospital specialists in England will be made on or after 21 May, with all initial offers made by early June and round 1 completed by late June. Given the continuing concerns of junior doctors about MTAS, the system will not be used for matching candidates to training posts, but will continue to be used by the deaneries."As we have stressed before, not all training posts will be filled in round 1, and there will therefore be further substantial opportunities for those who are not successful initially, including the new training posts that are now being agreed by the NHS and the Postgraduate Medical Education and Training Board. "We have accepted the review group's recommendation that this further recruitment will be locally planned and managed by the postgraduate deaneries. Because most trainee doctors' contracts are due to end before the further recruitment has been completed, we will be agreeing with the review group, deaneries and hospitals the necessary measures to ensure that all those trainees are properly supported and that patients continue to be properly cared for. "Finally, as I told the House yesterday, in relation to the recent security breaches of the online application service, a full security review of the MTAS system has now been completed and validated, and appropriate action taken to deal with the problem. The sitewas therefore reopened last week, for the use of postgraduate deaneries only, to support the next steps in the recruitment process, including continued monitoring in line with the principles of modernising medical careers. Because the investigation has made it clear that criminal offences may have been committed, the security analysis and report have been given to the police".
	My Lords, that concludes the Statement.

Baroness Barker: My Lords, when we discussed this matter two weeks ago, it was commonly recognised that something had gone badly wrong, but quite how seriously was not then obvious; it is becoming so now. Given that, the Minister would do well by the NHS if he were able to provide answers to a number of detailed questions.
	The Minister has announced that the system is to be subject to a review led by Sir John Tooke. Can he assure the House that that review will be wholly and thoroughly independent of the Department of Health? Can he explain the extent of the involvement of the Chief Medical Officer in the design of the MTAS system? The Chief Medical Officer is, after all, the doctors' doctor in government, so there is a serious concern shared by all doctors about the CMO's role.
	In the Statement, the Minister referred to criminal offences. I do not expect him to speak in detail about particular offences, but can he give us the order of seriousness of the offences that have been notified to the police?
	What is the cost to the NHS of the MTAS system and the handling of this crisis? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke of consultants being taken away from patient care in order to conduct interviews. Has the Department of Health made an estimate of quite how much this affair has cost the NHS? Further, what is the position of the contractor for MTAS and whatis the status of its contract with the department, given the appalling level of service provided?
	This year, we are going to subject doctors to a system that is patently unfair. We will have doctors who have been recruited using a system that is now widely recognised as fundamentally flawed. Does the Minister agree that there is a case for making all the appointments to posts this year for one year only, and next year introducing a system that is full, open and fair, and in which all doctors are appointed on an equal footing?
	Finally, a problem at the heart of all this, one which has been ignored, is that there are not enough training places. Over 30,000 doctors are chasing 23,000 jobs. In all the four Statements that the Minister in another place has made, she has not addressed that central issue.

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend accept that when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred to the disaster that Ministers have presided over, it would have been an even greater disaster for patients if we had kept the number of training places for doctors at the level that it was at when this Government came into power? We are now dealing with problems of success in doctor training, not problems of failure. Will the Minister accept that I regard it as a sign of strength in politicians when they change their mind on the basis of empirical evidence? I do not regard it as a weakness, and I commend my noble friend for repeating the Statement, which reflects that change of mind.
	We should not allow the bad news—and it is bad news—about the need for training places for doctors to overshadow other news about the National Health Service that has come out today—for example, the report of the Healthcare Commission.

Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, the question of how morale can be restored has been asked. When the Secretary of State in another place was asked to apologise six times during the discussions, she refused, but the good news is that our Minister here, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has apologised. Thatwas very much appreciated. There is no doubt that when the Government make mistakes, they should apologise and avoid attacking the medical profession and accusing it of making mistakes. A lot of remarks have been made about the old-boy network—the Minister used those words himself. Many hospitals have tried very hard over many years to make a serious attempt always to appoint the best candidates. When I mentioned that in a previous discussion, the Minister dismissed it as a one-off.
	Let me explain that if you put, say, 100 applications in order of merit on the basis of previous exam results, clinical assessments, and so on, then give that list to another group of people—perhaps the consultants—to see whether they agree, you end up with a list in order of merit. A secretary then gives the top one their choice and so on all the way down. There is no way that you can have an old-boy network as you cannot fix a job at all. Many centres in the country tried and established that system, and the old-boy network was precluded in many places.
	On the business of trying to avoid mistakes in the future, have we in place a system that will avoid awarding one point to a candidate with a PhD, and four points to a candidate who writes rather a good essay on how to manage stress?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness is being a little unfair. The Statement reflects two things. First, on the basis of the report on security, we have referred that matter to the police, so there is little I can add. The second part of the Statement related to the work of the review body, and encapsulated its discussions at its previous meeting. In addition to a number of oral Statements, we have issued regular Written Ministerial Statements and will continue to do so. The review group meets on a regular basis, at times weekly, and deals with specific issues. The Statement today was about a specific issue.
	Moving from the old system to the new one wasa huge challenge; there is no question about that. The foundation programme has worked very well. Indications are that the recruitment and interview process for GPs has worked well. We should not allow the immediate issues and problems which have been identified to undermine this whole process. At the end of the day, it is about a better training programme for the doctors, which means that we will ultimately get better, high quality, care. We must focus on that.

Lord Ramsbotham: I deliberately oppose Amendment No. 1, as I shall explain, because I stand in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about putting the four other principles in the Bill where she proposes.
	I have to start by saying, as I said on Second Reading, that the Bill is rather strange. Although it is entitled the Offender Management Bill, it is more about the management of the management of offenders and not about the management of the offenders themselves. If the Bill had been about the management of offenders, I would have expected that it would from the very beginning have been all about explaining what NOMS actually is and what NOMS does.
	The two services mentioned in the Bill—the Prison Service and the Probation Service—are alleged to be part of NOMS. I remind the Minister of a question that I asked her on Second Reading and which has not yet been answered. It was whether NOMS is a service or a system, because they are different things. I also quoted a Written Answer given in the other place by the then Minister, Mr Goggins. He said:
	"The establishment of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS) now provides clear leadership and accountability for the performance of all the correctional services and for reducing re-offending".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/05; col. 652W.]
	But the NOMS website, which I last looked at two weeks ago, says:
	"NOMS is the system through which we commission and provide the highest quality correctional services and interventions in order to protect the public and reduce re-offending".
	Which is it? It may be a service giving,
	"leadership and accountability for ... performance",
	but that is a completely separate thing from being a system in which everyone who has anything to do with the rehabilitation of offenders is a member. We need to know which it is. The Bill contains provision particularly for probation and how NOMS will work in the field with its regional offender managers—people without budgets who will be responsible for commissioning. The Bill seems to be more about how the ROMs are to work, and who they are to work with, rather than about the principles of what the treatment of offenders should be all about.
	We will come in our discussions on the Bill to many other questions about that issue. But the issue of whether "punishment" is the right word has very deep roots in the whole ethos of the Probation Service ever since it started. I consulted many members of the Probation Service on the Bill, and the one thing that, as the Scots would say, "stuck in their craw" is the inclusion of the word "punishment" in the list of what they are supposed to do. I remind the House of the wording of the Probation of Offenders Act 1907, which established the Probation Service. Section 3(1) states:
	"There may be appointed as probation officer or officers for a petty sessional division such person or persons of either sex as the authority having power to appoint a clerk to the justices of that division may determine, and a probation officer when acting under a probation order shall be subject to the control of petty sessional courts for the division for which he is so appointed".
	In other words, probation and courts march together and they work locally in the areas where the courts are situated. Section 4 states:
	"It shall be the duty of a probation officer, subject to the directions of the court ... to visit or receive reports from the person under supervision at such reasonable intervals as may be specified in the probation order or ... as the probation officer may think fit ... to see that he observes the conditions of his recognizance ... to report to the court as to his behaviour ... to advise, assist, and befriend him, and, when necessary, to endeavour to find him suitable employment".
	I venture to suggest that those principles are as relevant today as they were when they were written. For 93 years, advising, assisting and befriending was the ethos of the Probation Service—a service of which everyone in this country was immensely proud. It was not until 2001 that those principles were thrown away and the new ones which are the subject of the noble Baroness's amendment were produced, including the words "proper punishment". For the first time, the word "punishment" appeared.
	Why do I object to the word "punishment"? The criminal justice system is not really a system at all. It consists of a number of organisations working together and three in particular: the courts, the police and the Prison and Probation Services. In general terms, the police investigate, the courts sentence and the Prison and Probation Services administer that sentence. The "punishment" in that is the punishment that is awarded by the courts because of the crime that has been committed. The first time that I heard that expressed was in a statement by the then Mr Leon Brittan, who, when he was Home Secretary, very clearly said that prison was punishment, it was not for punishment. In saying that, he was not speaking originally, because the phrase originally came from one Alexander Paterson, a famous commissioner of prisons, who in 1922 said exactly the same thing.
	The fact that prison is punishment, not for punishment, is reflected in the statement of purpose of the Prison Service, which states:
	"It is our duty to keep securely those committed by the courts, to treat them with humanity and to help them to lead useful and law-abiding lives in prison and on release".
	If we apply the same language and terms to the Probation Service in line with the wording in the Ministry of Justice description entitled, What We Do, issued on 9 May 2007, it should state: "It is our duty to supervise convicted offenders in the community, those subject to a court order and those released on licence from prison, to treat them with humanity and to help them to lead useful and law-abiding lives".To my mind, that is a principle and purpose that would knit the two services together. They bothhave a duty to those committed by the courts to treat them with humanity and help them to live usefuland law-abiding lives. That is the work that must be done.
	I note that there is no mention of punishment in that. I am also interested by the addition of the word "proper" in the legislation. I would dearly like to know what "proper" means. What is proper punishment? Of course, as the noble Baroness rightly said, if someone breaches their probation they are punished for the breach. In exactly the same way, if someone offends against prison rules while in prison, they are punished for that, but that is an adjudication and punishment for something done during the sentence, it is not to do with the original sentence. That is the punishment awarded by the state. Although I know what the phrase "proper punishment" means—basically, it means the supervision of convicted prisoners, but it does not say so—punishment is the wrong word and gives absolutely the wrong impression of what the whole process of probation is about.
	Therefore, although I entirely agree with the noble Baroness that it is absolutely right in the Bill, which starts with probation, to state the principles of probation at the start, so that they govern everything that follows, I submit that we should remove paragraph (c). Perhaps we should come up with other wording, but please let us exclude the word punishment because it is a very wrong definition of what probation is all about. I beg to move.

Lord Borrie: I have been most interested to listen to both of the previous speeches. I am bound to say that I am not convinced by either of them that there is any need for the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, or the amendment to it proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. I say that in part because not only, as the noble Baroness said, does the Probation Service abide by those principles at present, but Clause 2 repeats most of what is in her proposed additional clause.
	On the argument between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, he will undoubtedly have noticed that Clause 2(4)(c) includes the phrase,
	"the proper punishment of offenders".
	Is the Probation Service involved with punishment? The answer must be no. Is it concerned at any point with the proper punishment of offenders? The answer must be yes. It does not impose the punishment; it is not supposed to. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, may think this simple, but I think that the phrase "proper punishment" means a punishment awarded by those properly assigned the task of punishment; namely, the courts.
	I fully agree with everything that the noble Baroness said about the Probation Service, and indeed with the more detailed approach of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, as I agree with the quotation from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice about the relationships that must be created between probation officers and those who are subject to the Probation Service's attentions. Of course that relationship involves resettlement, rehabilitation, and ensuring the absence of reoffending, but if I had to choose between the amendments of the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, I would not leave out,
	"the proper punishment of offenders",
	because at some point, as I have already said, the Probation Service must consider whether the person whom it is supervising has to be returned to the custody of the courts for appropriate punishment. As the noble Baroness said, the courts have the discretion not to impose any punishment at all, but it is theirjob to impose it if they so think. Moreover, I believe it is the responsibility of the Probation Service in appropriate circumstances to send the offender back to prison so that the possibility of proper punishment may be considered.
	As to whether one wants to hide away from the general public the fact that the Probation Service is concerned with punishment at any point, if this is to be recorded in a new clause—I believe that Clause 2 deals with this sufficiently already—it is probably beneficial that the public are aware that although the Probation Service's principal task is rehabilitation and relationships, it must unfortunately from time to time consider the failures that require the possibility of the courts imposing punishment.

Lord Waddington: To my mind, the purpose of probation has always been the rehabilitation of offenders and the reduction of reoffending. I well understand people finding the word "punishment" unattractive and inappropriate when used with regard to probation. However, there are reasons for saying that we should not get too excited about the matter. We are all agreed on the need to divert people from crime. We are agreed that in many circumstances sending people to prison is going to educate them in crime rather than divert them from it, and that whenever possible we should try to avoid sending to jail non-violent offenders who are not a danger to the public.
	I think that we are also agreed that we have to carry the public with us, if we are going to succeed in diverting more people from crime without sending them to prison. If we are to be successful in persuading the public that a prison sentence is not necessary, we have to show them that a community sentence is not a soft option or a let-off, but instead demands something of the customer. If, in persuading the public of that, one finds it necessary to talk of "punishment" in the community, that is nothing to get too fussed about.
	I understand the concerns of Napo that over the past 15 years the Probation Service's purposes have been "eroded"—I think that that is its word—with the introduction of the concepts of punishment, enforcement and public protection. I doubt, however, whether so many people—including, incidentally, many who a few years ago would never for one moment have been thought candidates for probation—would havebeen diverted from prison if these changes had not been made and if we had not educated the public in the way that we have.
	I agree that one of the consequences of making probation and community service more taxing is the likelihood of more people being in breach and finding themselves in custody as a result. We have to be very wary of that danger. We must avoid systems that remove discretion and make custody an almost automatic consequence of breach. Community orders seem to work, though, in that the reoffending rate is much lower than is the case with, for instance, those on licence from prison. We should build on the success that has already occurred and we should try to make it plain to the public that this is a sensible approach and that it is not being soft on the offender. If to persuade the public of that we have to use the word "punishment", I am all for using it, and using it often.

Lord Low of Dalston: I support the amendment in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay ofSt Johns, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman. I also support the amendment to that amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, as the statement of principles in the Bill that the amendment seeks would be better for probation without the inclusion of "punishment".
	I am sorry that, on account of other commitments, I was not able to participate in the Second Reading debate, because many things needed to be said about a Bill that sets out to make such fundamental changes to a service—the Probation Service—that has served this country well over 100 years. But I am glad to be able to participate in Committee and at succeeding stages.
	However, having missed Second Reading, I then had to go to Australia for two weeks, so I have barely had the chance to get myself up to speed. When I arrived back and asked how I could most usefully contribute today, I was told to speak for as long as I could on the principles of probation. That is not the kind of advice that I am accustomed to receiving and, should anyone ever give it, they usually come to regret it. The advice that I usually receive tends in the opposite direction. I am sure that that advice was not intended to encourage me to filibuster but that it simply reflected the importance that many people attach to the principles of probation, the subject of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. All the same, I am mindful of the countervailing advice of an old mentor who used to say that there is little worth saying that cannot be said within a reasonable compass. I shall try to steer a middle course between the different sorts of advice that I have been receiving and keep my remarks as brief as I reasonably can.
	As the right reverend Prelate said, there is a good deal of confusion about the role of punishment in our system. I suggest that the best way to sort out that confusion is to look at the system as a whole and in its component parts and to try to allocate the different aims of the penal system to different parts of that system as far as one reasonably can.
	For the first half of my working life, I taught law in one of our major universities. I specialised in criminology and penology and it fell to me to teach students about the penal and sentencing system, which meant telling them about the different types of penal measure available to the courts, including prison and probation. Looked at as a whole, the penal system embodies a range of aims, from retribution, punishment and deterrence to reform and rehabilitation, protection and prevention. These are not divided up and parcelled out neatly among the different penal measures, with one measure representing one aim and another representing another. All penal measures have a mixture of aims and none represents a particular aim in pure form.
	However, most penal measures probably represent one aim more than others and most aims probably characterise some penal measures more thanothers. Thus, fines and imprisonment are associated with the aims of punishment and deterrence more than any others; community service is associated with reparation to society and making the offender aware of the effects of crime on the victim. But I repeat that none of those aims exists in pure form. It is hoped that making some reparation to society will have a beneficial effect in terms of rehabilitation. Even prison strives to deliver a rehabilitative effect, although most of the time it seems to be an unequal struggle.
	It went without saying in my day that probation exemplified the aims of reform and rehabilitation more than any others and that it was the penal system's principal vehicle for pursuing these aims. From that point of view, probation was the custodian of all the most liberal elements in penal policy. It therefore came as quite a shock when I turned my attention to these matters again on my arrival in this House to discover how much things had changed in the intervening decades. It seems generally agreed that the historic values of probation have been progressively eroded over the past couple of decades, so I absolutely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and her colleagues that we must not miss the opportunity presented by the Bill, which threatens to wreak so much damage on the Probation Service, to reassert the traditional values of that service.
	Let me illustrate what I mean about the progressive erosion of probation. The distinctive qualities of probation, which set it apart from more traditional penal measures, were emphasised right from the start, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has reminded us, in the Probation of Offenders Act 1907. That Act enabled the court to appoint probation officers so that certain offenders whom the court did not think it fit to imprison might be placed on probation under supervision. The duty of the officers, as is well known, was to advise, assist and befriend.
	Telescoping the process considerably but still very much in line with the development of the Probation Service throughout the 20th century as the liberal arm of the penal system, in 1962 the Morrison committee characterised a probation officer as a,
	"professional caseworker, employing in a specialised field, skills held in common with other social workers".
	Rehabilitation, from the start and for most of its history thereafter, has been at the very heart of probation.
	But from the late 1980s onwards, underpinned by the Green Paper Supervision and Punishment in the Community, the process began to go into reverse and the Home Office started to move probation away from advising and assisting to community punishment. This was first formalised in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which gave the Probation Service a central role in delivering punishment in the community. National standards first introduced in 1988 were substantially revised in 1995, 2000, 2002 and again in 2005, each time becoming increasingly focused on punishment, custody and enforcement. The Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 changed the name of probation orders to community rehabilitation orders; community service orders became community punishment orders, and the combination order became the community punishment and rehabilitation order. By 2000, probation officers could for the first time recommend custody in court reports. This changed one of the fundamental values of a service historically geared to dealing with offenders in the community.
	The fact that the values of a service have changed over time, perhaps evolving with changing circumstances, does not prove that the clock should be turned back and traditional values reasserted; the values might have changed for good reason. But I do not think that this is so in the case of probation, and it is certainly not how those who staff and have to provide the service, whose morale has been considerably undermined by the changes, see things.
	Why do I say this? I do so for two reasons. First, although I have argued that none of the repertoire of measures available to the British penal system exists in pure form and all have a mixture of aims, nevertheless it is the case that all have a predominant character or ethos in which one aim by and large transcends the others and gives it that predominant character. Thus prison is principally associated with punishment, and probation with rehabilitation, reform and reintegration into society. It is right that there should be a degree of specialisation in the aims pursued by different aspects of the penal system, and differentiation of function between them, otherwise there can be a deal of confusion and unclarity of purpose. Punishment and rehabilitation do not cohabit well or make comfortable bedfellows. It is therefore important to retain within the penal system an institution whose raison d'être is to serve the traditional aims of probation, rehabilitation and reform differentiated from those elements of the system that are more oriented to supporting the aims of punishment, custody and deterrence.
	Secondly, if we look at prison, where there has often been greater confusion over its role, it is an understatement to say that we do not see there an institution that can claim a conspicuous record of success. As often as not, people are sent to prison not from any great sense of conviction—pardon the pun—that it is a particularly useful or constructive thing to do, but rather because there does not seem to be anything else to do. Half of young male prisoners are back inside within two years, while a third of the general prison population achieves the same distinction. In 2002, the Social Exclusion Unit estimated that former prisoners were responsible for 1 million recorded crimes each year. One does not have to seek far for the reasons. Around a third of prisoners lose their homes while in prison. Devastating in itself, this also makes the hope of reintegration into the community so much more of a lost cause. Two-thirds lose their jobs and two-fifths lose contact with their families. The outcome is the same. Thus it is absolutely vital that a specific arm of our penal system should be unequivocally concerned with the goals of rehabilitation and reform to offset as far as possible the failure of imprisonment, and that this core purpose should be up in lights on the face of the Bill at its head.
	When I taught criminology, figures for the comparative success rates of prison and probation were bandied about endlessly and were endlessly subjected to analysis, which was either sophisticated or casuistical and tendentious, depending on your point of view. But I always thought, even allowing for the differential characteristics of the clientele, that there was really no contest. Even if the success rates were no different, and I do not think that is the case—probation onmost measures coming out considerably ahead of imprisonment, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, reminded us—probation would win hands down on grounds of cost, disruption and social harm caused. If you can get people into employment, the risk of reoffending is halved. If you can get them a home, it is cut by 20 per cent. Probation is obviously better placed to do this than prison. In parenthesis, I should say that for these reasons the parts of the Bill that promote partnership with community organisations are very much to be welcomed, although it has to be said that much partnership work of this kind takes place already and there is no impediment to more being done without changing the law.
	Members of the Committee will observe and possibly object to the fact that I have concentrated almost entirely on rehabilitation. That is because I believe that rehabilitation is really the core animating principle at the heart of probation. I accept the other principles mentioned in the amendment and do not wish to quarrel with any of them, except punishment, which I shall come to in a moment. All the same, I wonder whether the amendment has the different principles in the right order. The only way ultimately to ensure the protection of the public, a reduction of reoffending and an awareness of the effects of crime on the victim on the part of its perpetrators is to rehabilitate them effectively. If you put the protection of the public first and despairingly decide that offenders cannot ordinarily be reformed, you move towards an American-style regime of long, fixed jail terms and deterrent-based sentencing. As we have seen, this has not been conspicuously successful, although it has been the UK's direction of travel for some time now. Such an approach leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy in which the ever fuller jails can make ever less provision for individual prisoners to lay the foundations for life outside prison. The longer they stay, the more uprooted they are when finally released. By contrast, the purposes of probation and all the benefits that it can bring to society, the victims of crime, the criminal justice system and offenders themselves were well summed up in the original duty to advise, assist and befriend.
	I can give my reasons for supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, quite briefly, because most of them are implied in what I have said already. The first is clearly that punishment does not sit comfortably with the rehabilitative role of probation. Too complex a mixture of aims leads to confusion and unclarity of purpose. Furthermore, too great an emphasis on punishment substantively undermines the rehabilitative work of probation, dependent as this crucially is on the development of a positive relationship between probationer and prison officer. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, that it is important for people to see that probation is not a soft option, and I assure the Committee that a challenging relationship with a probation officer is anything but a soft option. The Probation Service certainly believes that strongly.
	The second point is perhaps even more fundamental. It is true that the proper punishment of offenders is an appropriate and important aim of the criminal justice system, but there are questions about the balance in that system between punishment, restitution, retribution and other aims of criminal justice and how those are institutionally reflected. As I have argued, the Probation Service has a specific function within that system of acting as the principal vehicle through which the rehabilitative aims of the system are transmitted. Probation officers, no more than psychiatrists, are not particularly well placed professionally to say what constitutes the proper punishment for an offence or an offender. The judgment of what a person deserves is far removed from professional advice on the likely impact on an individual offender of one sentence as against another. What is a proper punishment is a matter for the criminal justice system as a whole. It is for the court, not the Probation Service or any other part of the criminal justice system, to arrive at and handthat judgment down. I therefore conclude thatparagraph (c) should not remain in the amendment.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I did not manage to speak at Second Reading either, but I see that that is no impediment, having heard the previous speeches. I do not have a prepared speech, but I will ask one or two questions and make one or two points.
	If I am talking about the nature and principles of probation, I would want that to be in relation to looking at how we treat offenders rather than how we maintain a service. That is the fundamental discussion that we seem to be avoiding. The arguments that I have heard so far are all about preserving a service. I want to preserve some of the principles, but those principles might have a different emphasis from what they had previously. Society has moved on; the Probation Service, like many other services—I speak as an ex-social worker and as the deputy chair of CAFCASS—has had to move on to meet modern-day conditions. The kinds of relationships that probation officers have to have in this day and age are somewhat different from what they might have had before. If we are looking for evidence about whether the present day service succeeds, we have only to look at reoffending rates—the whole emphasis of the Bill—to see that something has to be done and something has to change to intervene in reoffending rates.
	If we look at helping offenders, we have to look at the whole system. I could have an esoteric debate about systems and services, but I am talking about those people who are working in that service and system together to try to ensure that those people who fall foul of the law to a lesser or greater degree have an appropriate service to help them to become part of the community once more. That is why, when I understood the nature of the service in the original debate, I was excited by it, because I could see the continuity of the service throughout.
	We have found ourselves in a discussion about punishment, but I call it the use of authority. When I was a social worker we were trained in the use of authority, which has rather gone by the board. That meant that the people who you worked with understood at the end of the day that you brought about sanctions. Again, esoterically, you may not be the one who gave the sanction; that may have been the court or some other body. But you are the vehicle by which that sanction happens, it is your responsibility, and you are the one who is actually going to take the person back to court. I do not much like the word "punishment" either, but that is because I am a social worker and we do not much like it. At the end of the day, it is about ensuring that people have proper outcomes for their behaviour.
	I am finding it rather difficult to engage in the debate and the amendment at the level and the point that we have reached. I do not have difficulty with the Government's original statement. I have spent some time looking at the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and I feel that she is probably trying to achieve the same end. We have to be clear about the aim and purpose of the Bill; otherwisewe will spend the whole debate in Committee talking about phraseology, the use of words and interpretation. We will come to that in a number of other areas.

Lord Warner: I oppose Amendment No. 1 and suggest that some of the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, on AmendmentNo. 2 are misplaced. I, too, was unable to attend the Second Reading debate because I was abroad, but I shall spare the Committee the speech that I would have made.
	I am sceptical about putting principles at the top of a Bill. As I recall, we went through this argument on the Mental Health Bill and I am not sure that we much advanced the sum of human knowledge in that discussion. I am opposed to establishing such principles in this Bill when there are good definitions of the functions and aims of the Secretary of State in Clause 2 and, although we may have some differences on this, a perfectly reasonable shot seems to have been made in Clause 1 regarding the purposes of probation. We do not need to reiterate that. Having a multipurpose array of saying roughly the same thing in different parts of a Bill can confuse the people who have to implement legislation.
	I do not think that subsection (1)(b) of the amendment is an appropriate way of dealing with providers of services. Much of this Bill is about changing the way that we deliver public services in a range of areas. It is called a commissioning approach. The point about commissioning is that the commissioner specifies in a contract what the providers of services are expected to do. It is not the sort of thing that we need to put in legislation, particularly given that the Bill makes perfectly good arrangements for putting commissioners in place. The noble Baroness's amendment is misplaced.
	I listened with fascination as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, took us back to 1907. Social circumstances have moved on a little for the Probation Service since then. I would briefly mention the time that I spent as a special adviser in the Home Office just after the 1997 election, when we finally got round to sitting down and trying to change the training of probation officers, which was, until then, pretty much identical to the training of social workers. We had to confront a situation whereby some parts of the Probation Service were uncomfortable with the idea of enforcement. Many officers preferred not to take offenders back to the courts and if you looked at their training, you could understand why they had that level of discomfort. That issue has been dealt with and the training is now fit for purpose in the role of the probation officer in the modern world.
	We can have a debate on whether probation officers are there to enforce punishment, but they are certainly there to enforce the will of the court that has handed out a sentence. That means that they have to report back to the court when that sentence is clearly and repeatedly being breached by an offender. That puts them in an enforcement role and, I suppose, if you are an offender, they could be seen as being in a punishment role, because they are enforcing that sentence. This amendment is not necessary and the attempt of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, at an amendment to the amendment is based on a false understanding of the true role of probation in this day and age.

Lord Northbourne: I want to make one or two substantive points but I shall be very brief. I am prepared to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness in whichever form—with or without the addition proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham—because there are deficiencies in the Bill. It is not clear on a number of issues. Either we shall have to establish several overriding principles or go into a lot more detail in some of the wording. In particular, the Bill does not mention the issues of holistic end-to-end support in reducing crime, rehabilitation and reintegration.
	I was going to talk on the question of proper punishment as the right reverend Prelate and others have done. Having listened to the debate, the entire problem could be solved if the noble Baronesswas prepared to reword her amendment to say, "The supervision and enforcement of the proper punishment of offenders".

Baroness Stern: I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that there should be principles applicable to the Bill at the beginning, for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, has just given. I also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to delete the words,
	"the proper punishment of offenders".
	Since the government plan to abolish the Probation Service first appeared, and the proposal to create instead a set of probation functions that could be put on the market, I have received messages about it from different parts of the world. I have had three, in particular, from people in reasonably highly placed policy positions in justice ministries in their countries. "What on Earth is going on?" they wanted to know. "Why would the Government want to do this? You in England and Wales have something that we are struggling to build, without which there is an enormous gap in our criminal justice system". They have asked, "Is this service, a model for the world, to be fragmented and reduced to a set of functions?".
	I therefore crave the indulgence of the House to talk about what a probation service is. It is a lot more than a set of functions. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, made it clear that we should talk about what probation is for before we talk about the rest of the Bill. What we say about this will structure what we want to say about the rest.
	Probation is a lot more than a set of functions. A probation service is a part of a necessary balance in a penal system. It is usually seen that there must be a balance between punishing the criminal act and dealing with the problem that led to the act—a balance between actions that protect society by taking people out of it and actions that protect society by keeping people in it, supervising and encouraging them to live law-abiding lives. Almost every country has this balance in its penal system to some extent. Any major penal reform activity taking place in a country often looks for the creation of some body that rehabilitates, reintegrates and works in communities as a visible reassurance to the public that people who commit crime are dealt and worked with so that they change. In England and Wales, that body is the Probation Service.
	We are not talking about a set of functions that can be reallocated and loosely held together in a "probation trust". We are talking about an organisation with a name that is recognised and understood, and which is there to protect and rehabilitate. It must have officers with a trusted professionalism and a standing in their area, so that their authority is accepted. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, for the way in which she expressed that. Those officers need to be respected, and their organisation must be respected a great deal by the courts, other local agencies and the public.
	There needs to be a chief officer representing the service and known in the locality. There should be a strong organisation of chief officers, able to speak up in the public debate about probation and its work, the value of community sentences and the negative impact of short prison sentences. I agree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on the importance of public education and reassurance about the Probation Service. Chief officers should be able to speak about the huge contribution that rehabilitation and supervision can make to public safety and peaceful neighbourhoods. An organisation of chief officers should be able to brief Members of Parliament, and there should be a strong probation presence in the Ministry of Justice to advise the Minister. It is sad that probation does not appear anywhere on the Ministry of Justice website.
	The principles of what probation is should be at the beginning of the Bill but they should not include punishment, whether proper or any other sort. I raised objections to that at the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill in 2000, when I said:
	"I am very surprised to see such an aim set out in a statute ... I thought that it was the court which punished. The order of the court ... is the punishment. To suggest that those supervising the court order, whether in prison or in the community, should themselves be doing the punishing seems to me to run contrary to all the international requirements on the treatment of offenders as well as causing strong offence to probation officers who carry out their work on a strong ethical basis".—[Official Report, 3/7/00; col. 1299.]
	I can see why those drafting the 2000 Bill felt that it might give the impression that probation had been toughened up in some way, although I doubt whether anyone who would get that impression reads the small print of legislation. Now that probation is the responsibility of the Ministry of Justice, we can hope that a more appropriate term, more in line with the human rights framework, might be substituted; for example, "enforcement" would certainly meet the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. We are talking about enforcement. Words are important; we should try to use the right ones, and finding the right words in this Bill is particularly problematic. The inclusion of a purpose such as punishment would, in so far as the working probation officer or the person being supervised has the faintest idea that there is a Bill, that there are principles and that they include punishment, confuse and make it difficult to establish the trusting relationships that are the basis of successful rehabilitation.
	I end with a brief anecdote. Someone I know was talking to the Probation Service about the idea of bringing the services in a very deprived, crime-ridden area together with the Probation Service under one roof, on the lines of the excellent community court in Liverpool. The Probation Service listened to the proposal and responded, "That is a very bad idea. You have to understand that probation officers are not welcome in deprived areas because their only contact with those areas is when they go looking for someone in breach to send back to prison". I submit that this provision would not protect the public or make anyone safer.

The Earl of Listowel: I seek from the Minister the assurance that nothing in the Bill may unintentionally undermine the professional framework within which probation officers operate. For instance, it should not overburden the service with targets, procedures, regulations, inspection or data collection; rather, it should develop those working on the front line, increase the quality of their supervision and create greater opportunities for continuing professional development.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, was so right to talk about the authority of the person working on the front line, building a relationship with these often damaged adults and young people. Child protection workers are in this position. They go in to families where the children are at risk from their parents, who are very inadequate. In that situation, the social worker has to tread a careful line between settingthe right sanctions and protecting the child and supporting the parents to make a good job of parenting so that the child can develop successfully. That is similar to the role of the probation officer, who must not only protect the public but also help to develop people who are often quite inadequate or have had poor developmental experiences.
	We have discussed the purposes, but they will all fall to nothing if we do not get right the way in which we support probation officers in what they do and provide them with a framework in which they can operate effectively. I would appreciate an assurance from the Minister that that is not put into question by the Bill.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I rise to speak to the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and to the amendment to that amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. The first amendment offers the opportunity to focus on what the Bill stands for and what our National Probation Service essentially represents. It is about the provision and the nature of the service as well as about supporting people who are in need of such a service. It is about what the National Probation Service stands for in terms of values and principles and therefore what we want or need from such a service. It underpins the debates that we will have on the detail of the Bill because it addresses the extent to which the Probation Service will remain central to the business of offender management and explores the nature of the rolethat the service should play in the way we configure future offender management and community safety functions.
	The principles laid out by Amendment No. 1 at the very outset of the Bill assert their overarching relevance to all its aspects, rather than the narrower function of the aims, as they are referred to in Clause 2. They are then expanded and articulated in the detail of the probation purposes set out in Clause 1, which can be seen as the logical development from these overarching principles. They refer to the purposes of advising the courts on appropriate sentences and conditional cautions, supervision and rehabilitation, assistance to those on bail and working with victims, all of which must reflect and be embedded in those principles. One major omission is the purpose of tackling the underlying causes of offending, without which the goal of reducing reoffending is meaningless. We will return to this.
	There is a real problem in the language of the Bill, in which "probation functions", "probation purposes" and "probation services" seem to be used interchangeably, which is very confusing. Clarity is of the essence, and we should start with a clear statement of principles.
	The essence of offender management, which is at the heart of all probation services, is the fundamental belief in the capacity of people, including offenders, to change. It is the key. How we protect the public and reduce incarceration and reoffending is predicated on the belief that people can be helped to move from being an offender to being a citizen. That is the core of the value of the Probation Service and must be understood by all those who presume to reconfigure it. The principles of probation emanate from that belief. Deeply unfashionable as it is seems to have become, the phrase "to advise, assist and befriend", which has been referred to, encapsulates that humanity and the essential, personal quality of the nature of probation work, which we reject at our peril.
	I briefly raise one point that has not been discussed. It concerns the role and potential loss of the post of national director of probation. That post was created in 2001. With it came a significant move towards the coherent national framework that we have today. He is the accountable officer, answerable to the Secretary of State, dealing with issues of probity and due governance, carrying central responsibility for commissioning and being the point of reference for all chief officers of probation. He is the pivotal figurehead, spanning all aspects of probation work. He, I believe, is another detail absent from the Bill. Without debate that post has been downgraded in the new NOMS hierarchy, below that of both the chief executive of NOMS and the director of commissioning and performance. Itis not a mere detail. There is the real possibility that, as the commissioning of interventions goes out to contestability, this move will undermine the coherence so carefully nurtured and make the fragmentation of the service more likely. Coherence is a real and general concern; it is part of the very fundamentals of the probation provision that we are discussing. I would be grateful if the Minister could illuminate the Government's thinking on that issue.
	The second amendment, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, represents another of those fundamental principles that I have been talking about. The role of the Probation Service, or any other provider of probation services, is to carry out the instructions of the court; it is not to punish. The court will already have been advised through reports drawn up by the probation officer of the circumstances of the offender before sentence, but it is the sentencer's role and responsibility to punish. The sentence is the punishment under any of the multiplicity of options open to the court. The court will of course have in mind the principles and objectives that underlie the sentence, as will the probation officer; namely, the protection of the public, the reduction of reoffending, the needs of the victim, the awareness of what the offender has done and, of course, rehabilitation. It then falls to the probation officer to supervise the execution of the sentence to ensure that the conditions are met and, if they have not been met, to return the offender to court if necessary.
	It is greatly to be regretted that the service has been under growing pressure of the new "tough" enforcing ethos in the past few years. That has made its role more coercive and has resulted, inter alia, in a fourfold increase in automatic recall to prison for breach, which the Lord Chief Justice has described as a "trapdoor to prison". It has turned community service into community punishment. It has undermined the constructive role of the service and highlighted the primacy of punishment over rehabilitation.
	Like many of your Lordships, I have been a magistrate in the past and know what the process is about. It is left to the skill of the probation officer to enable the offender to comply through the process of the advice, assistance and befriending, through local knowledge of his circumstances, available resources locally and appropriate interventions. If things fail, the officer is expected to return the client to court for a further decision on what the next appropriate punishment might be. That is well understood by all parties.
	It is a contradiction to expect the probation officer to be both punitive and rehabilitative at the same time. Given the sanction of the return to court, the officer will do all he can to enable the offender to comply with the conditions of the sentence, and then to move forward, using all the interpersonal skills at his disposal, the development of a relationship of trust, a firm guiding hand and, very importantly, judgment. The process of changing lives or facilitating change is subtle and often slow, and it can often mean two steps forward and one step back, or possibly the reverse. It requires trust and commitment to move forward. I have never met a probation officer who sees himself as an inflictor of punishment. He has to choreograph carrying out the court's instructions. The indicator of his success is that his client fulfils whatever the court has required and completes and discharges his probation.
	I suspect that the press and politicians have contradictory expectations of punishment. Theywant retribution, so that punishment involves real unpleasantness for the offender and suffering to, in some way, mirror the suffering of the victim. But they also want an end to the offending. The chances are that those goals are mutually exclusive. Few people go straight because of suffering or fear. Indeed, those are likely to have the reverse effect.
	As anyone working in prison, as I do, knows, the most difficult prisoners to manage are those on indeterminate sentences or a whole-life tariff, because they have no hope and nothing to lose any more. Hope and the possibility of change are two very important drivers in prison. All the other elements in the first five principles in the new clause are constructive and positive. We do not need to include the paragraph on punishment.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As we have now discussed the amendments for one hour and 32 minutes, I reassure Members who may be forgiven for having thought that they had wandered into a Second Reading debate that we are still in Committee.
	Much has been said on which we all agree. I say straight away how much I agreed with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth. As we heard in every speech, we all seek to be able accurately to identify risk and need—in relation to the offender but also in what the offender will need to rehabilitate them—and, thereby, to restrict and diminish the likelihood that that individual will reoffend.
	I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, in her statement that this is not about the service, it is about the offender and offender management and what we need to do to assist the offender to leave offending behind. I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and I disagree—or indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and I disagree—much about the end result that we want. There seems to be a degree of dissonance about how we get there.
	I say with the utmost clarity that I can that this is not about the destruction of the Probation Service. This is not about change for change's sake. It is about creating a system that will help us better to deliver the change that we all seek. The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, is absolutely right when she says that we could do better on reducing reoffending. We want to do better. My noble friend Lord Warner is right to make clear that we are talking about two different systems: the system of commissioning services and that of the provision of services. I agree with the analysis of my noble friend Lord Borrie about what is in Clause 1 and Clause 2.
	To the right reverend Prelate, I say that I absolutely understand the dichotomy to which he refers. It is suggested that if one takes an aggressive approach to enforcing community penalties, saying that they are the best way forward and that we should use them on all occasions unless and until prison is unavoidable, that is presented as somehow soft. It is not soft, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, made absolutely clear. So there is much on which we agree. We do, however, want to be able to commission services from the best provider available, and to use organisations such as the NSPCC, Turning Point and NACRO, all of which bring valuable additional support to this effort, to supplement and partner public sector provision. Reducing reoffending is not a task for one sector or organisation in isolation. We want to be able to commission those services across geographical and organisational boundaries—spanning, for example, custody and the community, or very differently sized probation areas that do not always have the capacity to meet what sentencers want or what offenders need—where appropriate.
	That is why we need to take the statutory power to the Secretary of State. Although probation performance has improved, which I have acknowledged on a number of occasions in this House, service delivery remains variable and variably available. Probation services have often tried to hold to themselves work that can be done better in partnership with others. As the statutory providers of probation services, this is their right, but we do not believe that this right has been well enough exercised in the fuller development of a partnership approach, either with each other or with providers from the third and private sectors. That is why there is a division between the provisions of Clause 1 and those of Clause 2. In practice, although some services will be commissioned at a national and regional level, where it makes sense to do so, the great majority will be commissioned from lead providers at the local level, who in most cases will be the public sector probation trusts, and in full co-operation with their local strategic partnerships to meet the local area agreements.
	We will use our commissioning powers in the Bill to ensure that those providers in turn work in partnership with other organisations and subcontract work to other organisations where they are better placed to deliver them. That is why I can say confidently to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, that we will get the synergies that we need. We will be able to have the consistency, and we will be able to provide better for those about whom she cares so passionately, as do so many others in this Committee. We have said repeatedly that any changes to the system will be carefully implemented, and that there is no hidden agenda of quotas of work for any sector. We are, however, determined to get the best providers, be they public, private or third sector, to play to their strengths. This is what the Bill will enable us to do. In exercising these powers, the Secretary of State will have regard to the very same principles that are set out in the first amendment. That is what Clause 2(4) already requires him to do. It is there because we are introducing a process of commissioning.
	The aims were debated in the other place, both in Committee when Her Majesty's loyal Opposition tabled a very similar amendment to the one that is before us today—I shall scrutinise it to see whether there is an "and", a "but" or a comma that differs—and on Report. When the Bill was first introduced, it contained no provision for aims to apply to the new arrangements, although in practice it had always been our intention that they should. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Gerry Sutcliffe, listened very carefully to the points that were put to him in Committee. He accepted the force of the arguments in favour of applying such aims to the new arrangements for probation services in the Bill, to provide a clear framework within which to develop the new arrangements and to reassure the service that its basic principles remain unchanged. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary therefore tabled an amendment on Report to apply these aims to the functions of the Secretary of State in ensuring the provision of probation services. It is the Secretary of State who will be bound so to do. We did not extend the aims directly to providers because, as my noble friend Lord Warner made clear, where at all possible under the new arrangements, their functions will derive from their contracts rather than from statute, as at present.
	We want to avoid the risk of creating confusion for providers by subjecting them to both contractual and legislative obligations, not least because in future not all providers will be providing exactly the same range of services that boards provide at present. This means that the aims may impact on them in different ways. The sensible way forward is to use the legislation to require the Secretary of State to have regard to these aims and then to reflect as appropriate on the way in which he commissions and contracts for services. The contracts will then be drafted in such a way as to ensure that these aims are given appropriate priority.
	That was the approach we took in the amendment tabled on Report in another place which was passed unopposed. Indeed, the honourable gentlemanMr Edward Garnier, speaking for Her Majesty's loyal Opposition in the other place, while voicing concerns about other aspects of the Bill, said:
	"in respect of the amendment, I applaud the Minister and wish him well in that part of his work".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/07; col. 1007.]
	I believe that our colleagues in the other place were right to do this and I therefore invite the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, not to press her amendment.
	I turn now to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. As I have already explained, we believe that Clause 2 is the proper place for these principles. But I would like to comment on the amendment, which has the effect of removing from the list of principles the "proper punishment of offenders". In any list of aims or principles such as this there will be room for debate around the precise content. Indeed, I know that when this was considered in Committee in the other place a number of alternatives were suggested to build on the existing list. But no one in the other place suggested that it is inappropriate to have regard to punishment when dealing with those who have broken the law. I am confident that they were reflecting the views and expectations of the public in so doing.
	Society has always expected that those who break the law should be punished. More recently we have enshrined that expectation in legislation in the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000, which currently governs the Probation Service and on which the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is based, and also in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which sets out the purposes of sentencing. This is now a well established concept and it is entirely right that the Probation Service, the main function of which is to execute the sentences of the court, should be mindful of the purposes of that sentence when doing so. Indeed, it would be very odd if it did not. I think that the experience as magistrates of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, clearly demonstrates to us why that is so. I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, dissented from that.
	I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said about wanting to oppose this but I have to say to her, as gently as I can, that I do not agree with her, in many ways, because of the many comments that have been made around the Committee and because of what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, so elegantly expressed as the "use of authority". Authority has to be used if people are to reform. I also agree with those who say that it is really tough to help someone to reform and change. It takes time and effort. It is certainly not soft or easy.
	Punishment is the sense of loss of liberty or other rights and freedoms. Those losses are necessary in order to achieve crime reduction, public protection, rehabilitation and reparation. For example, the offender must give up his time to attend appointments, perform unpaid work or participate in offender behaviour programmes, and, where appropriate, must abide by prohibitions such as curfew and exclusion requirements. The offender manager is responsible for managing—and, yes, enforcing—the whole sentence. If the offender does not comply he must be returned to the court. Punishment is therefore an integral part of any sentence and cannot be disentangled from the other purposes. I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to withdraw their amendments on that basis.
	I was asked a number of specific questions, particularly—by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel—whether the Bill's effect would be in any way to reduce the authority and to increase the likelihood that proper supervision would not take place. I have no reason to believe that that is the case. We want to heighten the quality of provision given, to improve the acuity of assessment and, therefore, to improve the outcome so that more people will be successfully rehabilitated.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said that there was a primacy of punishment over rehabilitation. I assure her that that is not the case. The whole Bill is about trying to enhance our opportunity to use what works to rehabilitate those who have offended so that they will not offend again in the future. That must be the best way of keeping the public safe. As I say, we are not abolishing probation, nor are we seeking to undermine good practice. We are trying to enhance the opportunity for change.
	I say to the noble Lords who moved these amendments that the amendments are not necessary. We understand the basis on which they have been put. We understand their aims, but those aims are there, in Clause 2. Clause 1 is accurately framed in order to do the bidding of those around the Committee who have spoken. I invite noble Lords not to press the amendments.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I think the mood of the House is that I should be fairly brief in trying to respond to this serious and important debate. It may not only assist us in later debates but enable some of them to be more concise.
	As is often the case, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, encapsulated the two questions that had to be addressed in my amendment and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. Should the new clause come before Clause 1, when Clause 2 is serving that purpose, and is my definition "proper punishment" the right one? The noble Lord, Lord Warner, prayed strongly against the idea of having a new clause. Perhaps he will forgive me if I say that I heard the strains of an old tune played on a ministerial violin in his opposition to principles clauses. He went on to say that this is a different, market-based, commissioning system and he will hear me say later, as I have said before, that I support contestability. It is a new system, but I will try to make sure that it is more locally accountable. That is why I believe that the drafting of my new clause is correct and that it is appropriate for it to come before Clause 1. It not only applies to the Secretary of State—whose aims are covered in Clause 2—but addresses the issue of the providers.
	Some noble Lords, such as the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, will say that we should really be debating the services that are provided rather than the providers. However, I am stuck with what the Government have given me. This is the Bill as it is; as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has said, it is about the management of the managers of the offenders. I am stuck with that; I am trying to make the best of it and to make it work. A principles clause is of value, as the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, has said, in providing clarity in preparation for our later debates.
	I was asked a specific question by the noble Lord, Lord Low of Dalston, about whether the principles in my new clause are in the right order. I do not attach any order of priority or special significance to the way in which they fall. If I had, I would have made it clear in the drafting. I am glad that he raised that point because we will have to address it in a later amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Judd, where some significance may be allotted to part of the functions of the probation services. But in this amendment all the matters listed have equal significance.
	I considered very carefully the words "proper punishment". Could I or should I come up with another definition? As the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, said, I have borrowed heavily from the amendment that was agreed to by my right honourable friends in another place. I said in my opening remarks that we welcomed it—we still do—but within the context of Clause 2. In the context of my new clause, I felt that it had to be looked at again. I considered this extremely carefully. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, provided some very helpful attempts to look at something different. I considered the wording that he suggested, but the more I considered it, the more difficulty I found in seeking any other definition that might serve. We are trying to convey the fact that the probation providers are carrying out the orders of the court; the court has determined the sentence, which has to be human rights-compliant. I felt that if I tried to change the words "proper punishment" to anything else, I would find myself in difficulty. Overall, I agree with my noble friend Lord Waddington that we have to consider that the public must have confidence in what the service is providing. I am therefore stuck with "proper punishment".
	I began by saying that I hoped that the amendment would bring clarity, but it may not have brought quite the clarity I hoped for. I also said that I hoped it might be conclusive. In that spirit, I do not wish to bring it back at Report because I wish to put an end to this matter today. I feel that I know what that will be, given the weight of the opinions that have been expressed, but I wish to test the opinion of the House.

Lord Northbourne: I am certainly going to speak to them; I was waiting for the promoters of the lead amendment to speak. I most strongly support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, have said. Had I known that the amendment had been tabled, I would probably have spoken to it rather than tabling my amendments. If, at the next round, the noble Lord will let me come and play in his yard, I will be happy to join his team.
	I have some rather different points to make on Amendment No. 8. Clause 2 lists functions that will define the probation services that are available. Anything left out of that list presumably, as the Bill stands and unless the Secretary of State changes it, will be ultra vires for probation services. Is that correct? If it is correct, the Bill ought to be expanded to ensure that important services are not excluded. Amendment No. 8 suggests the inclusion of certain more specific functions that seem to me to have been left out. I will mention three of them. First, there is the end-to-end supervision and management of each offender, which was recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, in his report:
	"Prison and probation need to be focused on the management of offenders throughout the whole of their sentence, driven by information on what works to reduce re-offending".
	I have marked three places in his report in which he makes exactly that important statement.
	Secondly, there is the provision of guidance, help and support, where needed, to each prisoner, which is not specifically mentioned. Thirdly, there is the resettlement of offenders back into the community. It may be that the noble Baroness will tell me that all those things are included in "rehabilitation". If that is what the Government mean by rehabilitation, that is perfectly satisfactory to me, but we should say so; otherwise it will be a question for the courts to decide. It might be very much better to say so in the first place, because we need to encourage all those things, and it is desirable that they should be in the Bill.
	I have another quote here from the noble Lord, Lord Carter:
	"Prison and probation need to be focused on the management of offenders throughout the whole of their sentence, driven by information on what works to reduce re-offending".
	I apologise if that is the same quote as before.
	Why do those things matter so much? The seamless end-to-end management of each prisoner is surely the key to success in persuading prisoners to reform. Reform, especially from drugs and alcohol, needs a lot of courage, and it needs consistent personal support and encouragement over a period of time by someone who you trust and who you like to think cares about you. Resettlement in the community will often be extraordinarily difficult and will need a lotof intensive support. I remember when the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, arranged a visit to the Medway young offender centre. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, was also a member of the group. They told us that their main problem was that, having had the difficulty of persuading the young offender to have a stab at education, to get him back into the system and into employment, the young offender went back to his home town, and the school said, "Not on your nelly; we are not going to have him back". He would then be touted around all the schools in the district and none would have him, and he would end up on the streets with two or three hours tutoring a week, and as quick as you can say "knife" he would be back in prison.
	The Government are right that there is a huge need for co-ordination between the services. I liked what the noble Lord, Lord Judd, said about, "victims of the inadequacy of our society". I will not waste the time of the House enlarging on that; I am sure that we all understand what he meant. That is all I need to say about my amendments, which are additional to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd.

Lord Hylton: I support as strongly as I can Amendment No. 3 moved by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. He pointed to the importance of preventing offending before it ever happens. I argue that that cannot be done just by multiplying security cameras or even by policing in an effective way, including on foot. As my noble friend Lady Howe indicated, a large section of the population are young and may go either way: either in the criminal direction or in the honest and sober direction. They are the kind of people who have been in the care of local authorities or have been excluded from school, or, for some other reason, have not been able to get the full benefit of the education provided. On those grounds, I very much hope that the Government will see their way to accepting something in the nature of Amendment No. 3.
	As to Amendment No. 8 in the name of my noble friend Lord Northbourne, no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Carter of Coles, and the other experts understand the meaning of "end-to-end", but I do not and nor do I think do the general public. If something is to be done in that respect, I hope that a better term will be found.

Baroness Stern: I wish to speak to the amendments in my name and to support my noble friend on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the noble Lord, Lord Judd—in that context, a friend—and my noble friend Lord Northbourne. I shall spend a few moments saying something about rehabilitation and what might be required for it to be a reality.
	Over the past seven years, probation has been subjected to a series of experiments. We call them changes—my noble friend Lord Low was very helpful in taking us through them—but, in a sense, they have been experiments. The responsibility of the Probation Service to the locality in which it is placed has been reduced. It has been mechanised, with more of its work involving filling in forms about people. Those forms take several hours to complete and lead to a process being done mechanically. The results of the form are fed in and out comes an answer that tells you how risky the person whose form you are filling in is on a level of one to four.
	As a result, the discretion of probation officers has been hugely reduced. They have also been required to work to national targets—another experiment. The last set of targets that I saw included a national requirement for 50,000 orders of unpaid work,48,000 skills-for-life courses and 17,500 accredited programmes to be completed. These are then broken down by area and the probation officers have to carry them out; otherwise, I understand, they lose money the following year. The probation officers obviously have to find a certain number of people whom they can fit into their skills-for-life course quota, however relevant, or not, that course may be. That is but one example. So even the best probation officers, who are trying to use their professional skills to get to know a person, get to the bottom of their problems and build a relationship with them that could lead to change, must have at the back of their minds the question, "Could I manipulate this one into one of these courses, tick the box and help to reach our targets?" Is that what local communities want? I do not think so. We want the people in our Probation Service to use their training, discretion, patience and empathy to sort out troubled people from troubled families living in troubled neighbourhoods.
	Last week, the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies published the Community Sentences Digest, which showed that offenders on community sentences experience severe social exclusion. No one will be surprised at this but I should like to get it on the record: nearly two-thirds of those on community sentences are below the literacy and numeracy levels expected of an 11 year-old; more than half are unemployed; just under a third have a problem finding somewhere to live; nearly half have mental health problems; close to a quarter have a drug problem; and almost half have an alcohol problem. To deal with that sort of population, I suggest that those in the Probation Service should not spend so much time on their computers, dividing human beings into tiers of riskiness; they need to do what is set out in the amendment of my noble friend Lord Judd.
	Fergus McNeill, a distinguished academic from the Glasgow School of Social Work, has produced a very accessible summary of what all the research tells us about how people desist from crime. It is sometimes called "reducing reoffending"—an expression that I do not like because it is imprecise and does not really mean anything. Rather than plagiarise, I shall tell the Committee what Mr McNeill said. He makes eight points but tonight I shall give only two. However, if noble Lords come to further sittings of this Committee, they might get the rest.
	The first is the need to build positive relationships. All the research shows that we need to recognise that the quality of a person's relationships, both personal and professional, is central to the process of giving up crime. Mr McNeill says:
	"Like everyone else, offenders are most influenced to change (and not to change) by those closest to them and those whose advice they respect and whose support they value. Approaches to 'offender management' that fail to recognise the significance of the relational aspects of penal practice are unlikely to work".
	The second point is the need to recognise the significance of social contexts. Fergus McNeill says that, in supporting people to give up crime,
	"we need to look beyond the individual because achieving desistance involves and requires much more than changes within the individual. Trying only to 'fix' offenders can't and won't fix reoffending".
	Giving up crime requires,
	"new networks of support and opportunity in local communities and a new attitude",
	in those communities,
	"towards the reintegration of ex-offenders".
	I submit that we need to get probation officers away from their computers and out of their city-centre offices, where they sit and wait for people who have had to take three different buses and travel for some hours to get there to undertake a course that is of dubious value and does not in any way address their problems at home or their lack of a job.
	Perhaps the approach outlined in these amendments will set us on the road of understanding how narrow the Government's concept of offender management is, as presented to the Committee, whether it is end to end or beginning to end or wherever it begins and wherever it ends. The functions involved in rehabilitation are much wider and deeper than those summarised by offender management. It means very much more: it means doing deals with housing associations, getting good press coverage, going out to meet the public, getting the public involved and strengthening families so that they can give support. Offender management, as it is so expressed, would not enable people to get involved with the younger brothers of somebody who wasin trouble to try to stop them taking that route. It means playing a part in strengthening a community so that the community can cope with its released ex-prisoners.
	The amendments are a plea to broaden the concept of the Bill in those directions, and I wholeheartedly support them.

The Earl of Listowel: I will speak as briefly as I can to support strongly two of the important three points made by my noble friend Lady Stern and referred to by my noble friend Lady Howarth. There is an understandable anxiety on the part of the Government to safeguard the public and to reassure them that public money is being well spent. There is a general unhappiness that the extent of the attention to measuring how effectively money is spent and how effectively outcomes have been reached in the public services can sometimes be counterproductive. The Minister may have heard about targets for policeon the "Today" programme this morning. Some estimates for social workers say that only 33 per cent of their time can be spent with their clients, with the rest taken up with administration of various kinds.
	The Government's Green Paper on children in public care, Care Matters, showed that social workers wanted to spend more time with the children with whom they were working, to see them back into their families and to support them afterwards, but were prevented from doing so in part by the level of reporting that they had to do. Medical professionals report very much the same problem and are disheartened because they have less time to spend with their patients than they would wish. It is a general problem and one can see how it arises. If one has the confidence to build the professionalism of those at the front line and the culture around them, including immediate, first-line managers and leadership, one can begin to move away from those difficulties.
	Building positive relationships has been referred to several times this evening, including by my noble friend. The well respected 21st Century Social Work Review in Scotland, set up by the Scottish Parliament, reported the case clearly. It states:
	"Identifying needs and risks through assessment and developing and implementing action plans to address these will achieve nothing without an effective therapeutic relationship between worker and client".
	The report goes on to say that in recent years that relationship has been impeded and barriers have been created for various reasons. I strongly support what my noble friend said.

Lord Greaves: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the main issues under consideration in relation to the provision of coastal access.
	My Lords, I welcome the small but distinguished group of people who have indicated that they will speak in this short debate. I should declare an interest as a somewhat inactive member of the access and conservation committee of the British Mountaineering Council. When I put this Question down, I hoped that, when it came up, it would be topical because we would be half way through the Government's three-month consultation period on costal access. That is, regrettably, not the case because the consultation has been delayed a few times. I understand that it will now be launched on19 June; perhaps the Minister will confirm that. The good news—if the rumours are true—is that it will be launched by the Secretary of State, David Miliband, which is a cause for optimism. I asked for this debate in order to be helpful and constructive and to urge the Government along in what could be a very exciting venture.
	I was fascinated by what David Miliband said at the celebrations, almost a month ago, for the 75th anniversary of the Kinder Scout trespass. He said that land, even private land, is a public good and that we should assert our right to enjoy it. He said:
	"It should be accessible to all".
	I entirely agree with his sentiments. On 21 April, in an interview with the Grough website—many people who go walking or tramping about mountains will be familiar with it and, no doubt, with the groughs on Kinder Scout and Bleaklow—the Secretary of State said:
	"I'm here today because I want to honour the rebels with a big cause ... I think that it's important to say that we honour their memory with the way we support national parks, with the way that we implement the Countryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act but also from the next steps that we have with respect to coastal access".
	It gets better. As part of the celebrations of that historic trespass, he posed in front of a big sign that said, "Trespassers will be celebrated". I thought that, if this goes on, I will start to find some good things to say about this Government after all.
	The background to this is Section 3 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act—the CROW Act—which allows the Secretary of State to introduce by order the application of CROW to coastal land. We have moved on from that, and everybody now accepts that simply doing that is not the answer to better access to the coastal areas. However, I shall quote Section 3(3), because the definition is important:
	"In this section 'coastal land' means—(a) the foreshore, and (b) land adjacent to the foreshore (including in particular any cliff, bank, barrier, dune, beach or flat which is adjacent to the foreshore)".
	The noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, will remember discussing those words however long ago it was—six or seven years.
	More than a year ago, the Government asked what has now become Natural England to look at ways and means of introducing costal access and the options for it. In doing do, Defra set out its vision:
	"A coastal environment where rights to walk along the length of the English coast lie within a wildlife and landscape corridor that offers enjoyment, understanding of the natural environment and a high quality experience; and which is managed sustainably in the context of a changing coastline".
	Concern has been expressed by organisations representing recreational users of the coast—they represent everybody from the toddlers who go for a paddle right through to rock climbers and such people—that the word "access" does not appear in that vision, although "enjoyment" does. Will the Minister confirm that access to the coast is crucial to the whole business? We are talking not just about access along the coast or to the coast from places inland but about access within the coastal zone or corridor, in exactly the same way as with access land under the CROW Act.
	I pay tribute to Natural England for its thorough, interesting and extremely useful work. It has managed to come up with a different option from those options that we thought were available at the beginning. It looked at, analysed and assessed four different options. The first was a voluntary or temporary approach, perhaps relying on agri-environmental schemes. The second was a purely linear route—the creation of new footpaths. That could be very expensive if they involved rights-of-way creation orders. Moreover, they would provide inadequate access to the rest of the coast, notably the beach and the cliffs, and are subject to change if a cliff-top path is eroded—and the chances of that may increase with global warming. Change is a feature of the coast and always has been, but if the land erodes and disappears there is a problem.
	The third option was of mapping, as under CROW. I think that everybody instinctively recoiled from that, as it would be very bureaucratic and expensive. It might have been the right way to go for CROW, but there is a general view that it is not the right way to go for the coast. Mapping does not react to change. Finally, there was the innovative and exciting option that Natural England came up with of a coastal corridor or zone between perhaps the mean low-tide mark and an appropriate boundary with developed land or improved farmland inland.
	The Government have now said that they will consult on all these options. Will Natural England's preferred option get some sort of lead status in the consultation? Is it being put forward as the preferred option? Will it cover a broad zone that extends down to the sea, which I believe is necessary? In particular, are the Government committed to enabling movement along the coast so that people can walk right around the coast of England? Are they committed to access within the corridor, whether for wildlife purposes, for recreation, for just admiring and enjoying the landscape, or for getting down to the sea to paddle canoes, to go swimming or just to paddle?
	Is there a commitment to a corridor for protection and enhancement of wildlife and landscape as well as informal outdoor recreation—what might be called the "quiet enjoyment of the coast"? I wondered whether to write down the words "quiet enjoyment", since there have been occasions in the past when perched half way up a steep cliff face on the coast—whether or not I was enjoying myself tackling the crux of a climb that was probably too hard for me to tackle anyway—I may not have been very quiet about it. Nevertheless, is there a commitment for quiet enjoyment of the coast, as opposed to enjoyment with mechanical contraptions such as cars, buggies or whatever? Will all that be within a framework of a code of practice that is sensibly worked out between the different bodies, which the Government would no doubt call stakeholders but I would probably not?
	Is the Government's view that any restrictions should be based on common sense and negotiated locally between the different interests, based on much of the experience of access lands under CROW and particularly of the very successful voluntary restrictions that climbers have on cliffs all over the place? Do the Government intend to provide sufficient resources for Natural England and local authorities to provide the infrastructure and the management arrangements—the signs, gates, routes around obstacles and new paths to the coast? Finally, if this issue needs primary legislation, have the Government yet reached a view on whether the marine Bill would be an appropriate vehicle to include such legislation?
	These are all key questions. The Minister may say that it is too early to answer them because we have not entered the consultation, but some indication that the Government have taken these matters seriously would be extremely valuable. I look forward to the Government introducing coastal access that fulfils the very real vision that David Miliband has been talking about.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, is very important, but it is not without difficulty. Perhaps it is more difficult than one might suppose from listening to his opening remarks. I live on the coast of East Anglia in Suffolk. Walking along the coastal path is a favourite activity. In this case, the path is on a river bank on a tidal estuary of the River Alde, which is known as the River Ore closer to the mouth.
	The banks were created when the monks of a nearby monastery in the Middle Ages drained the marshes, thereby creating fertile land, which has, incidentally, produced valuable foodstuffs ever since. The path separates the river from the drained marshlands. The bank requires regular, routine maintenance. For some years, until recently, the Government have helped to finance this work with a small annual grant. Recently, in the lifetime of this Government, the funding was taken away, and the funds so liberated have been given to local authorities, which have mistakenly allowed housing to be built on local flood plains. I add that I am a member of an important local society, the Alde and Ore Association, which my wife and I helped to establish, and for which I have served as an unpaid officer in the past. Our local Member of Parliament, John Gummer, is an active supporter of it.
	In the context of the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, the important point is that in this case there is a coastal path, which is widely used by local inhabitants and visitors. There are active plans, supported by our association, to extend it by creating a new ferry at the northern end near Aldeburgh so that there will be access to the riverbank from the other side of the river, and, at the southern end over the Butley River, a tributary of the River Ore, by establishing a ferry to permit access on foot to the outflow of the river at Shingle Street—a fascinating place that would welcome some more visitors.
	We need to re-establish funding for the maintenance of the river banks, principally to prevent damage on the ebb tide, which, with the growth in global warming, can be expected to be very strong. Without this funding there would be no path to walk on. So the Government have a role to play here.
	I am not opposed to the general drift of the noble Lord's remarks. The whole subject needs careful study on the ground and proper funding. We should not repeat the unfortunate errors made over the designation of open countryside in the CROW Act, when zones were designated simply by examining maps indoors. Careful study on the ground is essential if these ideas are to be brought to a successful conclusion.
	I shall be interested to hear the remarks of the other speakers. I am interested in improving access to the coast. A lot of unpaid local work goes on to produce the results in which the noble Lord is interested, but we need some more help from the Government.

The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for once again raising a Question on this issue to keep the House on its toes on future policy.
	As the House will have expected, the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has for some time been anxious to know when the Government will produce their proposals for consultation on this matter. He has now managed to get the answer, which is very useful for all of us. One can see from the policy paper prepared by the Natural England board that a great deal of preparation has been going on both by and for Natural England—with Defra's coastal land advisory group, the RPA consultancy on the costs, Peter Scott Planning Services Limited and even a MORI poll, along with Defra's regulatory impact assessment.
	One of the first considerations that I need to address is whether the measure is intended to alter the present legal rights to the foreshore, which I understand to be the land below mean high tide, especially when it is Crown land. I understand that that is presently reliant largely on a de facto presumption of access, unless the right has been dedicated expressly or by presumption. There is always the possibility that that can, in certain circumstances, be taken away, and even then it does not provide a path of continuous access of the type that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, was looking for.
	It appears from the paper produced for Natural England that the favoured approach is that there should be a statutory methodology which will be applied to specific areas. Can the Minister give us a list of what he expects the elements of that methodology will be? If the final agreements are to be tailored individually, does that not suggest that the Government should begin by identifying and addressing the areas where there is the greatest demand? Given that an estimated 86 per cent of demand is for linear or circular routes of three hours or less, that statutory methodology should be applied, taking into account local consultation with access groups and land managers. Much of that will work best if it can be achieved on a voluntary basis. Are the Government prepared to enter negotiations on that basis and bring in statutory requirements only if all else fails? To progress on that basis might have another advantage, in that the cost would become more transparent as the agreements are rolled out.
	It is interesting to read studies undertaken to evaluate access provision in other countries. The countries chosen by Natural England will remind noble Lords of discussion that we had when the House was considering the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. Our dilemma is that we live in a heavily populated island surrounded by water. Figures that I obtained then showed that 77 per cent of the UK's surface area is managed either by farming or forestry, whereas, in some other countries, the proportion is nowhere near that amount. In Norway, the figure is 26.5 per cent. Denmark is a bit closer to our situation at 72 per cent, so the impact of access can be felt by more individuals. The current legislation in Scotland is still sufficiently new that lessons still have to be resolved, so our consideration of all those experiences needs to be tempered by an understanding of the differences.
	The proposals take into consideration that an exception from access provision should be made to land subject to development. That is obviously important in urban or industrial areas, but an area that has been subject to development which will not be excepted is agricultural land.
	In the list of the Government's outcomes and assessment criteria, it is intended that there be,
	"softening of intensive agriculture along the coastline".
	Almost by definition, there will be no intensive arable agriculture anywhere near a cliff face, as there will be thin soil and a danger from any machinery going too near the edge. So one can only assume that the Government are referring to intensive livestock production. If the current rules that apply to access routes are to be implemented, does that mean that those access routes will have to be fenced off from livestock, especially from cattle? Will that not raise the question of compensation for the fact that an area of land will be completely removed from grazing production?
	The Countryside and Rights of Way Act contained certain powers for the owner or occupier to restrict access at certain times and seasons for reasons of land management. That was enlarged on by the Access to the Countryside (Exclusions and Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2003, presumably to ensure that interested parties did not try to use those powers irresponsibly.
	A briefing that I have received from the National Farmers' Union once again raises the question of access with dogs—not, this time, on the always tricky issue of livestock with young, which can be considered on a seasonal basis, but for the growers of salad crops and vegetables. In that case, if there is any chance of contamination, there is a good chance of losing the whole contract. That was not the sort of issue that would come up when we were considering mountain, moorland, heath and down, and there cannot be too many areas where vegetables are growing right down to the shoreline, but the fact that a dog could get loose and roam across tens of hectares raises an issue. Any question of making it impossible for dogs to have access could be achieved only at exorbitant expense. We may need to consider a permanent restriction.
	An area in which local negotiation will be very important is where there is housing with gardens that run down to the shore. It is a great relief to see in some of the current papers that the concept of curtilage is being considered. Ideally there will always be an area between the curtilage and the beach along which a path can run, but especially in areas experiencing erosion it may become necessary to divert the access to a more inland route if the situation is tending to become dangerous.
	The outcome of the legislation will be an interesting test for Natural England, as our coastline contains some of the richest and most exotic sites for wildlife. An assessment was made by the Ramblers Association when we last debated the issue that there were 2,733 miles of coastline and estuaries. Can the Minister tell us whether an estimate has been made of how much of the coastline and estuaries contain areas designated with a classification of SSSI or higher rate of conservation?
	With the demise of English Nature, Natural England will now have both to decide how to achieve the access desired and to avoid compromising conservation value. Who do the Government expect to monitor whether that has been achieved? I am sure that when the Government finalise their consultation we shall have a chance to air any of those issues. Let us hope that we can come up with practical rather than triumphalist solutions.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am very grateful, as the House will be, to the noble Lord for securing the debate. It is very useful to have a run around the course, if I may put it that way, prior to the publication of the consultation. I am in no position either to confirm or deny any dates. All I can say is that the consultation will appear shortly. That is meant in the most sincere and positive form, believe you me.
	To be honest, many of the questions that I have been asked will be answered in the consultation. I have to be careful, because I do not want to prejudge the consultation. There is no secret about what is promised at present, but I hope that I will cover the points raised—others will be left to consultation.
	Before I talk about coastal access, it may be useful to look back, as the noble Lord did, on themajor success of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. It gave access to about three-quarters of a million hectares of mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land that had not previously been open to the public. We have every right to be proud of the Government's achievement in bringing forward the legislation forward and of Parliament approving it. As was implied by what the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, it was a piece of social legislation in the fullest sense of the words. I was not in the department at the time, but I remember reading many of the reports of the debates, and the House was certainly instrumental in ensuring that the right of access is a responsible right that balances the interests of users and landowners—this is important, and has proved to be successful in practice—and in ensuring that wildlife and the environment are also protected. That legislation showed what can be achieved when all the interested parties work together.
	People are enjoying their access rights responsibly, with absolutely minimal disruption to landowners. When the legislation was first mooted, the forecasts of what would happen as a result of it were a bit like the forecasts for the minimum wage legislation; they did not manifest in reality. That legislation was the result of good discussion in both Houses to try to achieve a practical solution to these problems. The Government had made it clear that we were going to legislate. It set a good precedent for thinking about coastal access, which we need to continue in this process.
	It is our belief that people want and should have uninterrupted, safe and secure access to the English coast, whether to enjoy a walk along the rocky headlands and secluded coves of the south-west or to experience the ever-stretching sandy beaches of Northumberland. There are people in some parts of the country who have said, "We have a real secret here. We would rather that the rest of the country did not know about it". I can fully understand why people have said that about certain parts of Northumberland. I have paid only one visit to the coast of Northumberland, and thought it was absolutely striking. It was a wonderful experience. It is certainly a big secret of the north.
	As has already been stated, the Government have already set out a vision of a coastal environment where the right to walk along the length of the English coast lies within a wildlife and landscape corridor that offers enjoyment, an understanding of the natural environment and a high quality experience, and is managed in a sustainable way in the context of a changing coastline. We are investigating the best way to deliver that vision, which is what this is all about. In 2005, we asked the Countryside Agency, English Nature and the Rural Development Service to consider how best to improve access to the English coast. Last October, these bodies came together to form Natural England, which, at the end of February this year, provided advice to the Government. That advice was based on detailed research, which included: market research to assess current public knowledge and the use of and demand for coastal access; the collection and analysis of spatial coastal data; an investigation into coastal access in selected European countries; an assessment of the best way to integrate and maximise the landscape, the historic environment and wildlife benefits with access provision; and detailed investigation in a number of study areas believed to be representative of different coastal land types. The study areas, which I believe are well known, were County Durham and the Hartlepool coast; the north Devon, Exmoor and west Somerset coast; the southern Cumbrian coast and Morecambe Bay; and parts of the Suffolk coast, which I particularly enjoyed in the Easter break.
	Natural England considered four options for improving coastal access. The first would use the HighwaysAct 1980 to create new rights of way around the coast. The second would use the power in Section 3 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, mentioned, to include coastal land in the definition of open country, to which the right of access applies under that Act. The third would use voluntary measures to create more permissive access. The fourth would be new legislation to create a coastal access corridor. When the Natural England board met to finalise its advice to the Government, it also issued a press release setting out the main thrust of that advice. It will therefore be no surprise to anyone when I say that Natural England has recommended the fourth option—new legislation to create a coastal corridor—as the way forward.
	The Government now intend to get the views of the public on all four options for improving access to the English coast that Natural England considered, and we will shortly launch a full public consultation process to do this. On the same day on which our public consultation document and partial regulatory impact assessment are published, Natural England will make public its research studies and its full advice to the Government. The whole package will be available for everyone, so we can have full consultation. We want an approach to coastal access that balances the interests of users and landowners in that same way in which the right of access to open country does, and that protects the rich and unique landscape and wildlife of our beautiful coastline. Involvement is the key to getting this right.
	The consultation will seek views and opinions on the four possible ways to improve coastal access. Each one has its own strengths, but they will not all deliver the same results. Natural England has concluded from its work that none of the three existing options could fully achieve at a national level the vision that I have set out. Its view is that none of these options can create the right mix of national momentum, local delivery and design, and future-proof coastal access against coastal change. Its recommendation is that the creation of a coastal access corridor through new legislation would combine the best features of existing options, and would give it the powers to make sense of the unique coastal situation and to ensure the necessary flexibility to take account of the circumstances on each section of the English coast.
	We have said that we are particularly interested in Natural England's recommendation to create a coastal access corridor in new legislation, and we are looking in detail at how this option might work. We are, however, genuinely interested in views on all the options. It is a genuine consultation. The consultation will be an opportunity for individual users and landowners, as well as local access forums and the many people and groups who promote and manage the marine and coastal environment, to share their expertise with us and to help us shape the way forward. They will do this with the benefit of the detailed background work carried out by Natural England and my department. I cannot say at this stage whether it will be possible to deal with the fourth option, if it is chosen, in the context of the Marine Bill. Obviously I cannot say whether the two pieces of legislation can be matched at the same time when I cannot give the House a date for the consultation. By definition, any consultation that starts next month, or at least as soon as possible, will cover the summer period. First, there will be complaints about it over the holiday period, so wewill need longer consultation. Obviously we will want to follow the Cabinet Office rule of a minimum of12 weeks, but there might be pressure to extend that. The minute that starts to happen, there could be difficulties because of the marine legislation. It is a question of balance. We are very hopeful that we can deliver on this manifesto commitment in as practical a way as possible.
	As I have indicated, some of the points that have been made in the debate this evening will be covered in the consultation, but I am not in a position to deal with them at this point. As the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, said, when he first secured the debate, he thought that he might be able to take tonight as part of the consultation. I fully assure him that the points made in the debate tonight will certainly be taken on board as part of the consultation. It is quite important that Parliament has a role. We may not have actually launched the consultation yet, but the points made will certainly be taken on board by officials at Defra. We have had an early debate. The Government had an exchange on this issue in response to a recent parliamentary Question about the noble Lord's initiative, and I have no doubt that there will be others. It is only through that informed debate that we will be able to reach a solution in what will be a really exciting initiative.
	I end with the caveat that this is a question for England. I have spoken particularly about the English coast tonight; indeed, I have mentioned it more than once. We are an island, but the island is not England, so there will be issues. I understand that the law is different in Scotland, so this is not an issue for Scotland. So far as Wales is concerned, this matter will have to be dealt with at some point, but it will be a matter for the Welsh Assembly. We will be dealing only with the English aspect when we draw up the legislation. I cannot answer all the questions simply because we have not yet had the consultation. To give any greater or lesser emphasis than I have already given would make it look as though we were prejudging the consultation. I have said that the fourth option is an interesting way forward, and we will give it due weight, but we will look for views and consult on the practicalities or otherwise of all the four options that were originally considered. As I have said, people will have the benefit of the full research, which will be published on the same day, so they will have the same information that the Government will have.

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister has said. On the question of legislation, my understanding is that the Welsh Assembly can go ahead under existing legislation only where it exercises the powers that the Secretary of State exercises here, subject to parliamentary approval. If the Government are minded to introduce primary legislation to do something different—perhaps built around the fourth option or whatever—would that not have to encompass Wales as well as England.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to movethat the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 pm.

Lord Ramsbotham: moved Amendment No. 5:
	Clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out paragraphs (a) to (f) and insert—
	"(a) the reduction of crime through working in partnership with appropriate public, private and voluntary sector organisations at local level;(b) courts to be given assistance in determining the appropriate sentences to pass, and making other decisions, in respect of persons charged with or convicted of offences; (c) authorised persons to be given assistance in determining whether conditional cautions should be given and which conditions to attach to conditional cautions;(d) the supervision and rehabilitation of persons charged with or convicted of offences, including those released from prison;(e) the supervision and rehabilitation of persons to whom conditional cautions are given;(f) measures to ensure compliance with court orders;(g) measures to ensure offenders' awareness of the effect of crime on victims, both generally and in relation to their specific offence; and(h) the giving of information and advice to victims of persons charged with or convicted of offences."

Lord Ramsbotham: My amendment may initially look exactly like the content of the main part of Clause 1(1), "Meaning of 'the probation purposes'". In fact, I deliberately selected the order of the paragraphs I put down here. They link to, and follow on directly from, Amendments Nos. 3 and 9, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, which we have just debated. With this amendment I am seeking to spell out rather more of the methods, having had the purposes explained in the amendment the noble Lord hoped would be accepted.
	Like everything else, you need to set out clearly the purposes of everything from which the methods flow. That clarity is needed above all when you are in an operational service such as the Probation Service, which has an operational responsibility for the management of the offenders who are put into its charge. At the same time you must describe the arrangements for people, so that they know where they come from. It is true that while we all instinctively support the idea of end-to-end management, whatever that means—in other words, there should be consistent oversight—we also support, and by "we" I include all the probation people with whom I have spoken, the fact that what needs to be delivered cannot be delivered by any one organisation alone; it needs the partnership of all available in the public, private and voluntary sectors. Indeed, partnership with the voluntary sector has been at the heart of the Probation Service since well before the 1997 Act, quite apart from what has happened since. I find it slightly ironic to learn that the Probation Service was actually commissioning more voluntary sector work before the Government made their changes than it is able to now. One of the problems, those in the service tell me, is the extreme financial pressure they are under; indeed, the financial officer of the London Probation Service described the problems of trying to manage his budget as trying to land a jumbo jet on a postage stamp—they are of that degree of magnitude.
	As my noble friend Lady Howarth said, we have to make certain that the authority of those people dealing with offenders is understood and absolute. This is about the management of offenders, and we must look after the people who do that. Therefore, I am slightly concerned that the tenor of the Bill, as reflected in what the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, is about commissioning and contracting, not about people. I submit that the first and most immediate thing to be put right when you are dealing with people is the people who will work with them. You have to have the right numbers; they have to be trained, directed and resourced. If that does not happen, the amount of commissioning and how it is done does not matter a damn.
	As we are talking about people and we look at how the Probation Service works, as my noble friend Lady Stern said so movingly, it is all about relationships between probation staff and others. Therefore, the methods by which you achieve the purposes must be to make certain that those probation officers are put in front of the people they have to look after, ready and able to do the work that is required.
	I spent all my working life, before leaving the Army, in an organisational service where we were accustomed to a hierarchical system. Everyone knew that they were responsible and accountable to someone, from the lowest rifleman right up to the Chief of the General Staff, the professional head of the Army who, in turn, went straight to Ministers. As has been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, the Probation Service, which needs exactly the same responsibility and accountability chain, is to be bereft of its professional head who is no longer to be the link between the service and the Minister. That is a retrograde step, to be avoided at all costs. Having a person who is both the professional head of the Probation Service and the adviser to the Minister sitting in the Ministry of Justice is a means of entry into the delivery of probation everywhere which is simple, clear and well understood.
	I admit that in my amendment, my paragraph (b)is exactly the same as subsection (1)(a) in theBill; my paragraph (c) is exactly the same assubsection (1)(b); my paragraph (d) is the same as the Bill's subsection (1)(c), but strengthened, as Ishall explain; my paragraph (e) is the same as subsection (1)(e); and my paragraph (h) is the same as subsection (1)(f). I set them out like that becauseI suggest that that is a more reasonable and understandable interpretation of the purposes and order of priority. Very deliberately I put first what I think ought to be the purpose, which is,
	"working in partnership with appropriate public, private and voluntary sector organisations at local level".
	That is at the heart of what must be done—empowering local probation services to go to whoever will provide the work appropriately. I submit that if that provision is included in the clause, a great deal of the rest of the Bill becomes unnecessary, because you have laid down that the partnership between the public, private and voluntary sectors is at the heart of how the services are delivered. There is no argument about it. All you need then do is make certain that the probation hierarchy, which is responsible for leading that partnership, has the resources with which to contract whoever it has to do whatever has to be done.
	If it is proposed that some contracting will be national, some regional and some local, it is essential that the person responsible overall for the delivery of probation lays down guidelines about which contracts will be national, which regional and which local. I have seen no regulatory impact assessment—although that may be the wrong term—of whether the private and voluntary sectors are able to deliver the sort of probation services that appear to be expected from them but about which there is no description. We do not know, and I wonder whether that work has been done. While everyone has aspirations, it is no good announcing them as policy unless you are certain that they can be delivered.
	Deliberately I have put the courts in the second paragraph because it explains that the relationship between the courts, probation and the police is absolutely fundamental. Assistance with conditional cautions must remain, but in paragraph (d), after,
	"the supervision and rehabilitation of persons charged with or convicted of offences",
	I have added the phrase,
	"including those released from prison".
	That is because they form a large part of probation responsibility, and that provision is not included in the current Clause 1. In paragraph (f) I have added,
	"measures to ensure compliance with court orders",
	which links in closely with our discussion about punishment in the earlier amendment, because it ensures compliance with orders of the court, which is what we are really talking about. It could be that it could go somewhere else, but it is absolutely essential to include a provision ensuring compliance in order to express the purpose of what has to be done with people.
	In paragraph (g),
	"measures to ensure offenders' awareness of the effect of crime",
	again links in with what has been discussed already. However, it is terribly important to include it here for the simple reason that it is the direct connection with all the work being talked about under the principle of restorative justice. Many claims are made for restorative justice, but only if it is actually put down as one of the methods to be encouraged will people take it more seriously than is currently the case. Finally, paragraph (h) provides for,
	"the giving of information and advice to victims".
	What I have suggested in this amendment is something which the noble Baroness could take away to be considered by the Ministry of Justice, on whose behalf she is conducting this Committee stage. It is clear that she cannot give verdicts on what might or might not happen and obviously has to report back to the Minister now responsible for taking the Bill through. I would ask that what I have said should be considered carefully. If the idea of partnership is accepted right at the start of the Bill, it would make some of the rest of it not quite so necessary. I beg to move.

Lord Dholakia: I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, Lord Judd,for his contribution to the earlier amendment. Amendment No. 5 is an extension of much of what he said. In my interpretation of the amendment, it would make four key additions to the purpose of probation as presently set out in Clause 1(1). The first additional purpose appears in paragraph (a),
	"the reduction of crime through working in partnership with appropriate public, private and voluntary sector organisations at local level".
	The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, spoke at some length about the role of these organisations.
	My main concern is the omission of any reference in the present Clause 1(1) to the reduction of crime. That is astonishing. Perhaps the Minister can explain why it has been missed out. The role of the Probation Service since its beginnings a century ago has always been to reduce crime by steering offenders towards a better way of life. It is this mission which motivates people to join the service, so to omit all mention of it is to reduce the purpose of probation to a mechanistic set of functions rather than a set of purposes which reflect an overall moral purpose.
	The second part of paragraph (a) refers to appropriate organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors at the local level. This recognises that it will be impossible for the service to achieve the aim of reducing crime on its own. Indeed, this is something I have often spoken about, and the amendment backs it up. For offenders to be rehabilitated effectively, the service must liaise with education and housing providers, employers, training providers, drug and alcohol agencies, mental health services, victim support organisations, and groups which offer support to offenders' families. In addition, faith organisations and representatives from black and minority ethnic communities have a vital role to play in the support and rehabilitation of those being supervised by the Probation Service. In the United States, I was impressed with the work carried out by African-American citizens on the rehabilitation of those from their community. They may well be an example of what the Probation Service needs to do as regards liaison with some of these groups.
	The amendment's second addition to probation purposes is the reference to the supervision and rehabilitation of those released from prison in paragraph (d). Supervising and rehabilitating released prisoners is a crucial part of the Probation Service's mission and should be recognised in any legislative statement of the purposes of probation. I believe that it should be in the Bill.
	It is estimated that around 1 million offences are committed every year by released prisoners, which represents about a fifth of recorded crime. If you could reduce the level of crime committed by released prisoners, it could make a substantial contributionto reducing overall rates of crime. The Probation Service's work of supervision and rehabilitation is vital in this process and should be clearly recognised in any statement of the purposes of probation.
	The third addition is the reference in paragraph (f) of the amendment to measures to ensure compliance with court orders. The whole purpose of supervision by the Probation Service is to ensure that orders are successfully completed. This means setting clear expectations of offenders, providing them with the support necessary to build up and sustain their motivation and helping them to deal with the multiple problems which have led them into criminal activity. If offenders persistently fail to comply with court orders, the service has a duty to take them back to court. The service's record in promptly initiating breach proceedings has greatly improved in recent years. However, it is preferable for a probation officer to motivate offenders to comply with court orders rather than end up having to take them back to court for non-compliance. This positive evidence should be reflected in setting out the purposes of probation in statute.
	Paragraph (g) of the amendment refers to,
	"measures to ensure offenders' awareness of the effect of crime on victims, both generally and in relation to their specific offence".
	Building up empathy with victims is a vital part of focused work to change offenders' attitudes to crime. All too often offenders dissociate themselves from the impact of their action on their victims. If they think about this at all, they often try to downplay its seriousness. The experience of restorative justice programmes shows that enabling offenders to see the devastating impact which their crimes have on victims can have a salutary effect on their attitudes, which in many cases can produce a genuine and lasting change. This should be seen as a central part of the purposes of the Probation Service.
	In summary, the changes which the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, would make to Clause 1(1) would produce a much better balanced statement of the purposes of probation. I hope that the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment or agree that the Government will bring forward their own amendment along similar lines at a later stage.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: I am sure that the Minister will take this list away and look at it carefully. I wish to make one or two comments about the list and say something about lists generally. My worry is that if I were part of a group of professionals in this area, they would think of half a dozen other things or come up with a different wording. My great worry is that a list becomes a job description. I should like to see a Probation Service that is released from many of these shackles and able to start developing different kinds of services to help offenders. Indeed, many of the very pertinent points that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has made about bureaucracy might not be helped by other measuring provisions in lists.
	I particularly want to mention paragraph (a) because its wording would do two things. First, it talks about "working in partnership". No one can criticise that, unless it excludes the whole concept of commissioning. We need to look at commissioning carefully. Secondly, the amendment mentions, "at local level". I declare an interest as the deputy chair of the Faithfull Foundation. We have had extraordinary difficulties commissioning a vital service to deal with sex offenders because the funding was all at local level. Where there is more central funding, some of those more essential services might be commissioned in a different way. Is that behind some of the thinking?

Baroness Stern: I want to make one point and to seek clarification from the Minister. I said in supporting Amendment No. 1 that a probation service is an essential part of the criminal justice system and is one of the feet on which it stands. On the one side, there is a Prison Service that is powerful, resonates with the public, sucks in a lot of money, is always in the front of the news and is a preoccupation for those who are responsible. On the other side, there is a community-based service that emphasises rehabilitation, gets less coverage and is easier to take the money from when there is a crisis. Those are two sides of the sanction system, and ideally there should be some balance between them in the strength of their voices and in the way in which they are regarded by Ministers. Some might argue—I will not do so tonight—that we have the balance wrong.
	I wonder whether the Minister agrees that the community-based rehabilitation service that the Probation Service is has a much wider function than supervising individuals. I am a little concerned about what she said earlier, and I am sure that she will put me right. Does she agree that it has functions in relation to the courts and to public confidence and a role in looking for volunteers, getting the public involved and being seen out in neighbourhoods and the streets? Does she agree that it should be well represented in the poorest communities and should play a part in trying to build social cohesion there, and that it should be in prisons carrying out a resettlement and welfare role? Those are the implications of the amendment. I would like to understand a little better where the Minister is coming from in her view on this. Is the intention of the Bill to turn the Probation Service into an "offender management service", as she said earlier, in which individuals are allocated someone who will work with them from one point in their lives to a later point? That would be a fundamental change in the Probation Service as we have known it. Or does the Minister see the wider role of the Probation Service as more along the lines of the amendment?

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, because he has taken forward our debate on the issue of "purposes" in Clause 1. We have tabled a further amendment to Clause 1(1), but Amendment No. 5 very effectively rounds off the debate on the principles underlying the purposes. He has put the list in a different order of priority; I am not trying to apportion priority, so that will remain a difference of view.
	I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that there is a danger of fallibility in lists, because something else could always be added to them. That is why Governments are always reluctant to accept lists when Oppositions try to put them in. Here, the Government are trying to be helpful by including a list, and have found themselves on the receiving end of all of us saying, "Yes, but what if?", and, "Could we not put this in?". Noble Lords have been helpful on this amendment, because the Minister will wish to take this away and perhaps look more carefully at how this list may be drafted and what is included.
	I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, that paragraph (a) in Amendment No. 5 may aim, intentionally or unintentionally, to exclude contestability from the working of the Bill. I shall keep my powder dry on "partnership" versus contestability, because I had intended to argue my case on Amendment No. 15, in relation to "Duty to co-operate", and it would be wrong to repeat myself. I will try to hold back tonight. I have made it clear that I am in favour of trying to give contestability a go.
	I may diverge from the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, in that I much prefer local control. It is a question of how we achieve that while retaining back-stop powers for the Secretary of State. I will listen to her arguments about the difficulties of commissioning and whether it is a small or large organisation. We will look at the various aspects of that.
	Paragraph (a), while meaning well in trying to address the reduction of crime as a priority, perhaps carries within it, in its reference to "working in partnership", something with which I could not go along. We will deal with that in detail later. By including "the reduction of crime" in the list, does the noble Lord intend the probation purposes to cover those who have not yet committed any offence? That is the implication, and it may be a drafting matter. I do not think that he means that the purposes of the providers of probation services should include those who have not yet committed a crime. There may need to be befriending or mentoring from resources—perhaps at schools or in other ways—but not necessarily through probation.
	I was interested to see the inclusion inparagraph (d) of,
	"including those released from prison",
	so that the provision now says:
	"the supervision and rehabilitation of persons charged with or convicted of offences, including those released from prison".
	I seek an assurance from the Minister that these people are already included by definition in paragraph (c). If so, I would not support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in his extension of paragraph (c). This is an important amendment which rounds off a day's debate on the principles that underlie the Bill. After this, the dam will break and we will be able to move forward rapidly on more concentrated issues.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I support the amendment and agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has just said. I understand the thinking behind what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is trying to do in reordering the paragraphs, as there may be a more logical sequence to the list, but I also hear very clearly what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, says. It is not so much a question of whether the list is inclusive or exclusive; the point is that it may become a straitjacket and a kind of job description. That is the risk you always run when you try to tease out all the crucial elements which you do not want to miss. I do not know whether there is a straightforward answer to that, but the issue is fraught with that kind of hazard.
	It is absolutely right that the probation purposes should emphasise partnership working, with whomever it may be, and that that should, wherever possible, take place at a local level, because that is where the offender lives. If the pillars of a roof, a relationship and a job, which can be the structure around the work, are met, then there is a context and a more realistic chance of a successful outcome.
	The amendment proposes a mixture of some new probation purposes and some which are, as we have already discussed, in the Bill. Paragraph (d) is significant because it introduces the element to which I referred earlier and which is palpably absent from the Bill—the place of prison in offender management and, in particular, the role of the Probation Service when offenders are released. Not including prison in the plans for resettlement makes a nonsense of the notion of end-to-end management. Therefore, we welcome that addition as being essential in the planning of supervision and rehabilitation purposes.
	Paragraph (f) in the amendment is also new. It is helpful in that it highlights the issue of compliance with court orders and clearly reflects our earlier discussion on the role of probation vis-à-vis the court. Probation's task is to use all the available skills and professional expertise to carry out the orders of the court and ensure compliance and then to returnto court if they are not adhered to. Achieving compliance is the one measure of success in probation work and it should be clearly stated as an objective.
	The core value of a belief in the ability of people to change is inherent in the aims of probation. Therefore, it is right that the aims are restated in this logical way.
	Finally, the inclusion of offenders' awareness of crime brings in, for the first time, the possibility of restorative justice being more embedded, expanded and developed within the context of offender management.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We have had a very interesting debate. As we have seen already from our discussion, Clause 1 sets out the various purposes that govern the probation services that are to be provided under the rest of Part 1 of the Bill. I remind the Committee that they are essentially the same as the current ones, set out in Section 1 of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. The way in which they are interpreted is very well understood. They have been used for the past seven years.
	We have before us a range of suggestions on how the list might be improved. Of course, I am sympathetic to many of the points made. However, I do not consider any of the activities that have been mentioned not to be the proper business of the Probation Service. They are all things that the service can do. Our debate reminded us, if such reminding were needed, of the wide range of activities in which the Probation Service is engaged throughout the criminal justice process. The question is whether additional explicit provision on the face of the Bill is required, or whether these activities are adequately covered by what is already there. All the things alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, are already part of the framework of what the Probation Service does.
	I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, that by explaining how offender management will work I do not seek in any way to diminish the other important parts of probation work. I think that the noble Baroness neglected to mention another group of people with whom it is extremely important for the Probation Service to work, the victims. It works not just with offenders but with victims. That part of its work should continue. When considering what we need to do to reduce offending and reoffending, which is the focus and the part which the Probation Service plays, we must ensure that it properly concentrates on those issues. I remind the House that the Probation Service is a partner in the local strategic partnerships. It will play a part in the crime and disorder reduction partnerships. It plays a part in the local criminal justice boards, which some chief probation officers chair. It has gone right to centre of the criminal justice system. In the past, it was often seen as a bit of a Cinderella on the edges. Now the Probation Service sometimes drives change and welds the criminal justice system together, an important cultural shift that has rightly happened in the past few years.
	I remind the Committee that the role of offender management gives the managers a more important role. They will be working very much on a par with their Prison Service colleagues, and they will be very much in control of the direction of the care of that offender, notwithstanding that the offender will perhaps be housed in the prison system for a significant time. All significant sentences will be served partly in the community and partly in prison, and the nexus between the two is absolutely critical in getting the sort of improvements we need.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I do not think that it is. We must look at our experience since 2000. That is why I highlight the fact that we have preserved in the Bill the criteria expressed then. We know from experience how that has been interpreted, and we are all content with how it has operated. It has not impeded the development of services or activities; indeed, many have praised how it is dealt with. We can therefore have a certain degree of confidence that it will not be misunderstood.
	The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, asked about how prison governors would work, the relationship with trusts and whether there would be a fragmented approach. It is critical that we do not have a fragmented approach. If I can take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, we must commission according to need. The whole point is to assess what offenders and victims—we must remember that it is not just offenders—need in an area and to commission appropriately. It is likely that the majority of services will be commissioned by local trusts because they will be the most knowledgeable about the needs.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, referred to other services that may be more efficaciously commissioned on a regional basis. That applies to certain specialist services. To take the example given by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, of services for sex offenders, we are fortunate not to have such a body of sexual offending in every area that each needs a specialist service. We therefore need to collocate relevant services on a regional basis to provide as efficaciously as possible easy access for those who need it. It makes sense to commission such services more regionally.
	Other services, because of their specific nature, may have to be commissioned nationally. However, the local flavour is critical. We expect that the majority of commissioning will be done locally. A commissioner will contract with the local trust, which will then co-partner. I do not think that commissioning and partnership are contradictory terms because we intend commissioning to focus on need, and we know from our analysis that, if you follow need, it leads you to work in partnership with public, not-for-profit and private bodies. That configuration delivers the appropriate service to match needs. It is already being looked at in the best areas.
	As this is likely to be our last general exposition, I wish to give examples of regional contracts. In the east of England, a commissioning pathfinder was established in 2006 with Serco, Turning Point and Rainer to reduce reoffending by increasing the take-up of sustainable employment by offenders. Initially, the projects focused on Luton, Southend and Bury St Edmunds, where key workers were given individualised support to motivate, mentor and prepare offenders for work. Key workers engage with employers to boost confidence in offering work to offenders. The project runs until 2009 and aims to place 460 additional offenders into employment each year. That is an example of services coming together to meet identified needs.
	The point about volunteers made by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is absolutely right. Volunteers working as mentors can have a fundamental impact on offenders. They can walk with the offender at a time when the public service and the not-for-profit service may not be available so to do. We want to enhance that work. Part of it will be driven through the work we are doing on the alliances, but also through the work we are doing through the reducing reoffending boards. We absolutely understand that it is not just the public services that must do this work; we have to brigade communities generally and help better to inform them so that they can help us better to address some of these problems and bring about the change. There is an opportunity for us to do that.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howe, talked about the prevention of offences. We will be working in partnership with other government departments, including the Home Office. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is right that the Home Office remains responsible for crime reduction, crime prevention and the crime strategy. The Home Office will continue its work with CDRPs, local strategic partnerships, schools, health authorities and all the others to prevent crime. The Home Office will be working very closely indeed with the Ministry of Justice.
	I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that when I stand at this Dispatch Box, I speak on behalf of the whole Government, not one department. Therefore, I can assure him that these issues will be raised. They have been raised; the Ministry of Justice has looked at these issues, and we will look at them again. They are very important.
	The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, proposes a number of additions. The most significant is perhaps the reduction of crime through working in partnership with appropriate public, private and voluntary sector organisations at a local level. As I hope I have made clear, this is an important part of probation activity. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires probation boards to co-operate with local authorities, the police and others on the formulation and implementation of strategies for the reduction of crime and disorder. Those responsibilities will be carried forward into the new world. We will ensure that providers of probation services continue to contribute to the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, as boards do now. In addition, Clause 3(3)(a) makes express provision for contractual arrangements with providers of probation services to require them to co-operate with other providers of probation services or persons who are concerned with the prevention or reduction of crime. One of the key drivers of our proposed reforms is a desire to see much more partnership working than we do now.
	It is precisely because we think that probation boards are currently trying to do too much themselves and are making insufficient use of the resources of providers and other sectors that we want the powers in the Bill. We want to use the commissioning powers to encourage trusts to subcontract services to other providers locally so that the public sector Probation Service can concentrate on its strengths. I strongly suspect that the outcome that I envisage is remarkably similar to that which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has in mind. Where I think we may differ is that I believe that we need more than an amendment to the probation purposes to achieve that. We need a change in the current structures. That is what the rest of the Bill delivers.
	The noble Lord also proposes an addition to Clause 1(1)(c) to refer to persons released from prison. I am happy to confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that that is already covered by the subsection as it stands. The noble Lord then proposes making specific reference to compliance withcourt orders. This is an area in which probation performance has improved beyond recognition in recent years. For example, enforcement action is now taken swiftly in over 90 per cent of cases. However, it is an integral part of the supervision of offenders and does not require separate mention. En passant, I should say that what has happened is that, as enforcement has gone up, so has compliance. That is a very important indicator.
	The same is true of measures to ensure offenders' awareness of the effect of crime on victims. Of course that is important, which is why it is mentioned in the aims in the following clause, but it is an integral part of supervision and rehabilitation, not something separate.
	I am grateful for the debate that we have had on these matters, which has helped to establish the context for the more detailed discussions that will follow. I agree with the noble Baroness that we will, I hope, be able to deal with them far more quickly, as we have now set the framework and the context for the debate. We could debate the precise wording and emphasis of the different subsections, but the fact remains that the probation purposes in Clause 1 are, as I have indicated, already well established. They have already been the subject of parliamentary debate during the passage of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act, and, with the addition of paragraph (f) on work with victims, they have served us very well indeed. I think that they work well as a foundation for the further provisions that follow. On that basis, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

The Earl of Listowel: Before my noble friend does, I thank the noble Baroness for replying to my concern about fragmentation and partnership between businesses and governors. Perhaps I may encourage her to take away and consider, rather than responding now, the relative professional status of probation and prison officers. I add for her consideration that not only in the culture of probation but throughout the whole culture of social care—the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, will be able to discuss this with her if she wishes—good supervision is fundamental. That is individual one-to-one supervision on a regular basis with a senior practitioner of that person working on the frontline, to look not only at performance and check that the job that is required is being done, but also to look at the impact that working with vulnerable, damaged people has on that person at the front line. It is considered indispensable.
	When one hears of the experiences of people who end up in custody, of their drug addictions, their learning disabilities and their other disabilities, it seems to me there could be three positives here: first, prison officers have a terribly challenging job to do and one might find them enjoying it more if they had better support; secondly, they would probably do a better job, in terms of engaging young offenders while in custody, if they had that support; and, thirdly, the cultures would be more similar if both prison and probation officers had a similar form of supervision. I am sure we will discuss these points later on, but I would appreciate it if she would take that away and think about it.

Lord Ramsbotham: I am very grateful to the Minister for the way she has answered the question. I am also very grateful to those who have contributed. We have had an extremely useful discussion, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, to wind up the rather wider issues we have been discussing today.
	I would like to reassure my noble friends Lady Howarth and Lord Listowel that I did not ignore commissioning, because commissioning is how the partnership will be processed. I was not going to raise that issue in this part, I wanted to make the point that they were working together, and that that was in the method. There are ways that the actual business of commissioning has to be obtained, and I deliberately left that out. On central management and the direction, and fragmentation, which my noble friend Lord Listowel mentioned, that is one of the reasons why I believe there needs to be a central management structure.
	One of the weaknesses in the Prison Service, for example, is that there is no way to spread good practice. One of the most important things in spreading good practice is to have a system for doing so. From the chief of the Probation Service down through the director of probation and the chief officers is one way to do that. That is simple, clear and people know from who they will get direction. I am aware of fragmentation and it is to prevent fragmentation that I suggest that that structure should exist. That way, good practice will be spread.
	I was very glad that the noble Baroness mentioned the enormous success that some chief probation officers have had in leading local criminal justice boards. That needs emphasising. Indeed, I go further to say that perhaps that should be regarded as the default position. Chief probation officers who have acted in that role to whom I have spoken have spoken warmly of the opportunity that has been given to them and said that their delivery of service has improved as a result of the relationships that have developed as a result of working in that way.
	In that connection, I was interested because I thought that, at last, I had had an answer from the noble Baroness about what NOMS was. What she described was a system conjoining two services. I accept that; that is fine by me; I will buy that, because then we know where stands. But then she called it a service again, so I was back to where I was.
	I absolutely accept the need to commission according to need. Of course that is what will be done locally when it is determined what is needed to be done. Of course, as my noble friend Lady Howarth mentioned, certain things must be done nationally and certain things regionally. That is why, in introducing my amendment, I suggested that it was important that what was to be done at national, regional and local level should be laid down. Some things can and some things cannot be left to a lower level.
	In the amendment, I describe the general method by which probation would be delivered, which emphasises the local level—I do not discount that. I accept what the Minister said: that much of my amendment is already enshrined in other Acts, but I understood that one of the Government's purposes in putting the provisions together in this way was to bring them together in the Bill so that people could know their purpose without having to rummage through to find where they were. All that I was doing was lifting things that I felt appropriate to the purposes and putting them all there, acknowledging that they all have another source.
	I am much comforted by the fact that the noble Baroness, representing the Government as a whole, said that what we have said will be taken away and considered carefully in the processing of the Bill. In that spirit, I am very happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 25. I fear that we have not quiteleft the issue of lists—the overarching broader brushstroke, as it were—because my amendment would insert the words:
	"the Parole Board and the Secretary of State to be given assistance in making decisions in respect of persons sentenced for offences",
	at the bottom of the list. Although lists have their pros and cons, we are working with a list in the Bill.
	We recognise the considerable, indeed central, work of the Probation Service in connection with the release and recall of sentenced prisoners. The Home Secretary recognised in the other place that this part of the role of probation officers is a core task and should be reserved to the Probation Service alone. In general, their skills are deployed in assisting the courts by providing impartial, accurate, reliable, skilled and professional advice when a decision is being taken, whether in the youth courts, the magistrates' courts or the Crown Court. Where this is pre-sentence advice, it may be written or verbal and, wherever appropriate, will offer alternatives to custody.
	The clause refers to assessments of people who have committed offences. These may include assessments of factors that are likely to contribute to the reduction of offending, such as their needs, the risk of harm to others and the risk of reoffending. This is an area where public protection and safety can be an issue, so it is vital that the probation officer is in a position to assess risk and dangerousness. Apart from the Parole Board and the Secretary of State, this may also involve the courts and the Prison Service. This assessment and advice is of course based on professional skills and is inextricably linked with the process of managing offenders. It requires a knowledge and understanding of the individual concerned, continuous assessment of how they are coping with their lives, and what their strengths and weaknesses are. All this stems from the quality of the relationship between the probation officer and the individual.
	The management of risk and dangerousness may be involved, and the process of serving a community sentence is organic. For the assistance to the courts to be meaningful, it requires ongoing knowledge of the dynamics of an individual's life. This cannot be detached and farmed out to some other provider to be the offender manager, as the probation officer would no longer be in a position to discharge his duty to the courts adequately. In turn, this means that offender management is also a core role that should be dedicated to probation. It was decided in the other place that this should be the case, but only for three years. This is wrong and should be amended so that these interlinking roles can be carried out properly.
	Each year, the Probation Service starts the supervision of some 175,000 offenders. At any one time, the caseload is more than 200,000. Seventy per cent will be on community sentences, and 30 per cent will be imprisoned with a period of statutory licence. There will be about 246,000 pre-sentence reports, and 20,000 bail and information reports. Advice is given on the early release of prisoners, which is specific to this amendment, in 87,000 cases a year. Finally, there are about 50,000 cases in which victims of serious crimes will have chosen to express their concerns and the impact of the crime on their lives, and it will be included in the report. This is part of the process of working restoratively with victims and their families, and it both benefits the victim and contributes to the offender's better understanding of the effect of the crime that he has committed. It is important that this highly skilled and very important part of the service provided in probation is recognised and put in the Bill.
	The same arguments apply to Amendment No. 25 as they did to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, at the beginning of this debate. We often tread similar ground as we go through these amendments. I hope that I can add usefully to the debate. Amendment No. 25 would insert the words "enforcement of court orders", which is, of course, what the court expects to do when it has taken its decision on punishment. However, while attempting to ensure compliance as far as possible with the terms of the court order, should that not be possible, the probation officer will be expected to return to court for a revision of the punishment and the order. Beyond giving advice on the circumstances of the offender and as much background information as possible, the probation officer has no part in the court's decision on the type of punishment. Nor can he add or detract from that decision. This provides the offender with a safeguard, and reassures the public, by depersonalising the concept of punishment at its point of delivery.
	There is a parallel in the role of prison staff—this was clearly gone into by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in an earlier discussion—vis-à-vis punishment and the decision of the court. If custody is the punishment, it is the role of staff to enable the prisoner to do his time in such a way as to be more able to lead, as we have heard, "a good and useful life" on release as stated in the prison rules. A person is sent to prison as a punishment but not for punishment. Prison officers are not people who are themselves expected to inflict further punishment on a prisoner. Indeed, if suspected or found to have done so, they would be very likely to find themselves being disciplined. The expectation is that all concerned will be using their skills to make the experience of prison constructive and positive. This is extremely difficult in the current situation, but that remains their role.
	There is a perception that community-based penalties involving unpaid work and a whole range of options in a community order mean that somehow the offender is getting off lightly or not being properly punished—"walking free from court", as we often see in the newspapers. This is the perception of the tabloid press in particular and nothing is further from the truth. Indeed, as all the recent studies and polls show, as I mentioned earlier, the public have no appetite for prison as punishment. The really difficult thing is change. These are huge issues which have to be addressed in the context of a person's life in the community.
	For many probation officers the term "enforcement" is a very strong one, at odds with their rehabilitating role. This is entirely understandable because theystand at the very interface between punishment and rehabilitation. "Enforcement" describes a duty, but the spirit in which it is carried out will be determined by the nature of the relationship with the offender, the skills of the officer and the manner in which this duty is exercised. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for the way in which she has explained her amendment. Not only has she genuinely rounded off the debate on Clause 1 and purposes but has also added to the concerns that we had earlier about how one can get into difficulties when one tries to draft lists. When I read Amendment No. 11, I had some deep concerns, most of which she has allayed. Obviously the noble Baroness is talking about services to courts and, when she refers particularly to the Secretary of State being given assistance, she is really referring back to the Parole Board, the first part of her amendment, and early release matters.
	When I read the new subsection, my immediate concern was whether it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to be given assistance from probation services, for example, on matters such as those relating to people who are subject to extradition proceedings and foreign prisoners and whether they should be sent back overseas. The way in which the amendment is drafted means that the probation purposes will go much broader than I would wish them to go. I wish to see the Home Secretary's role in making executive decisions retained. But I appreciate now that the noble Baroness means something rather different and that she is referring only to early release matters. I certainly sympathise with that and I hope the Minister will tell us that matters such as what happens to someone on early release are already covered by the list we have before us.
	I shall not stray into speaking to Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 because I have said everything I can on them.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I rise to answer this useful debate, in part to give my noble friend Lady Scotland a little respite from the rigours of the Dispatch Box. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, for tabling the amendments. They have enabled us to have a little extra focus on some issues that have already been exorcised somewhat over the six and a half hours that we have been at it so far.
	Amendment No. 11 usefully seeks to explore and, in its drafting, add the assistance that probation gives to the Parole Board and the Secretary of State to the probation purpose, and which the noble Baroness describes as "a list". That is fair enough. That is exactly as it appears.
	Probation involvement in the parole process is already sanctioned by specific provisions in the Parole Board Rules 2004, and in the formal directions to the Parole Board made under Section 32(6) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Examples of such provisions include the requirement to include a home circumstances report—which, among many other things, seeks to reflect the attitudes and concerns of the victim and their families—and the inclusion of non-standard licence conditions. The proposed revision of the Parole Board Rules will see them take the form of a statutory instrument rather than the previous administrative means by which they were framed, so they will be given extra authority.
	That involvement forms part of the primary functions of probation in supervising and rehabilitating people convicted of offences. Probation advice is given because of the expertise and knowledge that probation staff obtain in exercising those functions. That does not mean that the resulting assistance should itself become a primary probationary function and be referred to explicitly in the Bill. That is not to diminish the importance or significance of that work, but in our view it does not need to be set out in terms in the Bill in the way that the noble Baroness suggests.
	Amendment No. 25, as the noble Baroness said, touches on similar territory to Amendment No. 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, which has had an extensive discussion. I do not particularly wish to go over the ground that has already been covered, but the case is that the amendment seeks to replace "punishment" with "enforcement of court orders", and while that might act as a descriptive term, we do not believe it accurately reflects the position. As was said earlier, society has always expected that those who break the law should be punished, and we have enshrined that expectation in legislation. I well remember the form that debate took when we were discussing the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill back in 2000. That Bill became an Act, and it currently governs the Probation Service. The same spirit is contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which sets out the purposes of sentencing. That punishment is an integral part of these purposes and enforcement is now a well established concept, and I am afraid that the amendment fails to recognise that fact.
	We have not heard from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, whose Amendment No. 26 is also in this group. I am therefore reluctant to deal with the amendment he would ordinarily, I am sure, have spoken to.
	I hope that the noble Baroness, having heard what I have said and what was said earlier, particularly about the second of her amendments in this group, will feel able, having had some extensive discussion on that part at least, to withdraw her amendments today.